jumppilot

I left before we got a new contract to WB FO land. Now with this TA I’ll be making more than I was as a NB CA.

I had a trip bought this month. End result - 25 days off for 76 hours pay.

The juice isn’t worth the squeeze. 90 hour NB CA months were hurting my mental health.

rekatron

For an alternative perspective, this contract makes NBCA far more attractive than it was before for me. I live in base and love to get paid for not working, so I will happily be a senior reserve, bid multiple short blocks of reserve, and pick up as many short calls as I want. When they start forcing new hires into the left seat, the staffing will be more robust, and there will be fewer open trips. I'll pick up field standbys whenever I see them pop up, and easily end up with 80-90 hrs of pay at the end of the month while only blocking maybe 30 or 40. Half of those block hours will likely be first class deadheads from broken-up trips. And of course the pay is so much better.

I didn't even have to think twice to vote yes on this. My only regret is that I only have but 1 yes vote to give.

iahflyr

Hit the nail on the head.

Signed, NBCA who would much rather have it this way than have the flying back at the regionals and NB flying back like it was 5-8 years ago.

Swindler128

If the logic at united is that life starts past 50 or 60. I mean
..... yikes

When does the cancellation of airport rsv begin ? As if that's a win it's just a return to 0

Chuck D

dude. We hit 3 weeks at 5yrs and 5 weeks at 10. If you somehow can’t live life prior to that timeframe that’s on you.

cfouriv

[QUOTE=Swindler128;3697987]If the logic at united is that life starts past 50 or 60. I mean
..... yikes

I'm almost 40, going to have 15 years of 5 weeks of vacation and another 10 years of 6 weeks. There are much younger pilots here, that have been here longer than me...

hummingbear

Well my statement about what we leave behind us truly was meant much more generally than this TA, but I love a good drift. Yes, I have major hang ups with forced upgrades & I’ll spare you my explanations. Would I say we are selling out the careers of the next generation? That’s a pretty absolutist way to state it. I certainly think it has the potential to be very damaging, but admittedly could also turn out to be benign- there are a lot of variables beyond just the initial decision, & very few things that have caused significant damage to the profession happened all at once. It’s a step which, once taken, is out of our hands to follow its own course; & history will judge us by its long-term outcomes much more so than our intentions today. I definitely don’t think it’s something we’ll ever be proud of having done, & in a worst-case scenario (which I try not to be glib about) I think we would be deeply ashamed.

Is it a concession? It absolutely is a concession as it takes power from the pilots & cedes it to the company; & any concession by definition means we are leaving something worse than when we took possession of it. So the question then becomes, does the contribution of what we get in return justify what we gave up?

Now ask yourself, when you look at the rest of the TA, where have we improved upon present industry standards? What ceilings have we pushed through or what new ground have we broken? Frankly, I don’t see any. I know that sounds like a slam, but I’m just trying to be objective. It’s a fine industry match, but we really didn’t raise any bar, we just snugged up against the bar in hopes that Delta will raise it again next time. Where I see the biggest gains in this contract (PS, bridge to LTD), we are mostly bringing ourselves up to existing standards in areas where we presently fall far behind; not breaking down barriers for others to follow. In that respect, I think what we are getting is what we were already due without needing to offer up concessions.

Maybe that’s an answer that sounds like I’m running for congress, but it’s kind of a nebulous equation to balance. Do you make significant personal gains that don’t really contribute anything meaningful to the industry at large, but also come with one poison pill which could amount to nothing, but could also cause significant harm? (That’s a lot of variables.) I guess it depends on how risk averse you are. I’m having a hard time feeling like I want to spin that roulette wheel, but once it gets spun, I’ll certainly be sitting there hoping it lands favorably with the rest of you. Vindication would be the least satisfying outcome for me.

NuGuy

Vacation pay is important, but vacation is, theoretically, about time off. But it's not just about the number of days to drop touching trips like back in the old line bidding process. Without putting some credit towards your obligation, PBS would work to cram a months worth of flying into the rest of the month. So in addition to the total number of days & pay, you need to compare how it interacts with your particular PBS to generate an "extra day off". In other words, what fraction does each vacation day provide to go towards your obligation on either a line or a reserve schedule.

For example, at DAL, assuming an average line value (ALV) set at 74 hours, the line construction window runs from 64 to 84. Assuming you are an "average" person, and PBS is going to build you a line around 74 hours. In 2024, the DAL vacation is worth 4:15 pay & credit (for scheduling building purposes), so 2 weeks is worth 59:30 towards your obligation, which means that you only need flying crediting 14:30, or one 3 day trip, to reach the ALV. If you have some seniority, you can request a "min schedule", which could generate a line of around 64 hours (guaranteed to 65), so really you'd only need a one day trip to get a full schedule.

There are a lot of things that go into vacation: number of days for each longevity step, when the step happens, what vacation the company makes available, how it is bid, credit towards schedule building, pay, vacation swapping, potential cancellation, etc, etc. It is one of the harder areas to do a true 1:1 comparison.

Race Bannon

Fair enough and a reasonable POV.

As an aside, I think the company will use the mandatory upgrade as a last ditch maneuver. It might be seen as a disincentive by new applicants(might also be a draw), but once the company has done it, it will have everlasting repercussions. Almost analogous to being able to tout, "We have never furloughed". For some, that is a safety net that goes in the "pro" column,( I realize that a little convoluted but I think the company would like to be able to say we have never forced a NH upgrade). I think for most pilots, it will not affect their decision to come to UAL, but once the monkey is out of the bag, no telling the consequences. Consequently, I think mgt will only pull that trigger as a last resort. JMHO

Still doesn't change the optics of the provision in the PWA.

ReadOnly7

you should just go somewhere else.
(based on all of your posts)