No comment on ASA PBS LOA yet?

[atlcrjdriver]

1. The existing system favors the senior folks. I see no reason to replace this with a system that further favors the senior.

Any system put in place will benefit the senior most people. The question is will this system improve my QOL as a mid-junior cpt? From what I have seen thus far the answer is yes.

2. The Company wants PBS very, very, very badly. This can't be good for pilots.

As stated, the company wants PBS b/c it will save them money. The pilots can gain w/ improvments in QOL. We all gain from being more cost competative and the potential for more business and growth.

3. The Union can't to be trusted to get adequate language in place to minimize the Company's capacity to subvert PBS to their own benefit.

Once the TA has been published ask your reps about any language you deem suspect. It is very hard to make such a statement on contract language that you haven't even seen.

* - Not one pilot I have spoken with on the matter had anything to say about PBS that didn't involve some variation of "don't do it" and varied profanities.

I have talked to many pilots from companies that have PBS and the answers vary. Each PBS system is different based on the software used and the contract language attached to it.

Wait until the TA is published and express your concerns to your reps before you make your decision.

 

[Av8trix616]

My understanding is that both the company and the union have said that there is no cost savings with PBS until we "Grow," and the savings would be from not having to hire (read: bring back furloughs) as soon as they would normally have to.

With the rumor from Delta flying being a 7% Year over year increase for the summer, and ASA's staffing *currently* at 4.5ish crews per airplane (and thin reserve staffing), seems like a vote for PBS just keeps folks on the street. Course, voting to keep folks on the street is a lot less painful than voting to kick them off the property... which is why the company took care of that for us, a mere week before magically coming to a prelim agreement about PBS.

Would we resist furloughing those people if it was part of the PBS agreement? Would furlough protection for those pilots still be part of the negotiation, like it was in the beginning? 4 days went up and productive trips have gone down in the last 8 or so months as well, and PBS is being offered as a method of solving this problem. Ever hear of a store jacking up the price on an item so they can mark it "30% off!" bringing it down to the original price...?

 

[buscap]

I harbor no illusions that the company has any interest in a win situation for the pilots. They are in business to make money, not friends.
In talking to a number of pilots at airlines with PBS*, the language of the agreement is just as important as the system used. Our union is too weak to get the language tight enough to make the system work as intended. The Company has demonstrated time and again that they follow the letter of the law, not the intent. I do not trust the Union to finally get it right with this change pushed through with all the alacrity, zeal, and determination they failed to show during contract negotiations.
I will wait for the road shows, but I am inclined to vote No because:
1. The existing system favors the senior folks. I see no reason to replace this with a system that further favors the senior.
2. The Company wants PBS very, very, very badly. This can't be good for pilots.
3. The Union can't to be trusted to get adequate language in place to minimize the Company's capacity to subvert PBS to their own benefit.
* - Not one pilot I have spoken with on the matter had anything to say about PBS that didn't involve some variation of "don't do it" and varied profanities.

While I can't argue with your opinion on PBS, I believe you are being a little hard on the union. Please take a moment to count how many areas of our contract are industry leading.

And the letter of the law battle is fought at every airline with varying degrees of success. Even the areas in which the company has won the fight, we are ahead of other carriers.

 

[777forever]

You must be on the 200.....there is a vast difference between the staffing levels/block hours on the 200 per pilot than on the 700/900. We are pretty swamped every month on the larger airframes. It seems the month-to-month variation is almost isolated to the 200 series a/c.

Im on the 700/900 and while I've heard the Captains are pretty swamped the FOs are not. I have yet to credit 90+hrs on reserve since summer.

When they start offering premium pay continuously for both seats then we are in an understaffed condition.

 

[Cpt Oveur]

Im on the 700/900 and while I've heard the Captains are pretty swamped the FOs are not. I have yet to credit 90+hrs on reserve since summer.

When they start offering premium pay continuously for both seats then we are in an understaffed condition.

When they're understaffed in both seats...

 

[Tarzan]

I harbor no illusions that the company has any interest in a win situation for the pilots. They are in business to make money, not friends.

Agreed 100% in regards to making money. However, a somewhat happy pilot group will work harder to get the job done. SkyWest did not stay non union as long as they have without doning something to keep them happy. As the old saying goes, "A company that deserves a union, gets one."

In talking to a number of pilots at airlines with PBS*, the language of the agreement is just as important as the system used. Our union is too weak to get the language tight enough to make the system work as intended. The Company has demonstrated time and again that they follow the letter of the law, not the intent. I do not trust the Union to finally get it right with this change pushed through with all the alacrity, zeal, and determination they failed to show during contract negotiations.
I will wait for the road shows

Have you read the language yet? How can you say this? They've spent over a year working on ONE item. I can't say that was exactly rushed.

1. The existing system favors the senior folks. I see no reason to replace this with a system that further favors the senior.
2. The Company wants PBS very, very, very badly. This can't be good for pilots.
3. The Union can't to be trusted to get adequate language in place to minimize the Company's capacity to subvert PBS to their own benefit.

1. This is your chief complanit then. You aren't alone, many pilots seem to be reserved about what they don't know with anything about. It is in our nature.
2. Just because the company sees an opportunity to save some money, doesn't mean they are out to bend you over.
3. I understand your complaint here as well. I hate it when people say this but, have you spent any time with any of these guys who worked on this? Have you voted for any reps? If you don't agree, that is more than alright, but you have to get involved with the process to some degree. The way things were done in the past seemed favor ostracizing dissenters. It looks like this mindset is changing. Share you thoughts with the guys involved. Hopefully for the next contract we get lots more guys showing up and asking questions and seeing how much fun it is when language is being written.

* - Not one pilot I have spoken with on the matter had anything to say about PBS that didn't involve some variation of "don't do it" and varied profanities.

No other company out there can compare to what is in this LOA. The Skywest guys don't seem to care for theirs much but that is understandable. Additionally, most pilot groups had PBS forced on them in bankruptcy. We aren't under that constraint. Give it a good look at the roadshows. Find your new reps and give them an earful. Get involved!

:beer:

 

[aircombat]

My understanding is that both the company and the union have said that there is no cost savings with PBS until we "Grow," and the savings would be from not having to hire (read: bring back furloughs) as soon as they would normally have to.

With the rumor from Delta flying being a 7% Year over year increase for the summer, and ASA's staffing *currently* at 4.5ish crews per airplane (and thin reserve staffing), seems like a vote for PBS just keeps folks on the street. Course, voting to keep folks on the street is a lot less painful than voting to kick them off the property... which is why the company took care of that for us, a mere week before magically coming to a prelim agreement about PBS.

Would we resist furloughing those people if it was part of the PBS agreement? Would furlough protection for those pilots still be part of the negotiation, like it was in the beginning? 4 days went up and productive trips have gone down in the last 8 or so months as well, and PBS is being offered as a method of solving this problem. Ever hear of a store jacking up the price on an item so they can mark it "30% off!" bringing it down to the original price...?

Finally someone else that sees the obvious. The others blinded like 777forever who say if we call them back for the summer we will furlough again next winter. NO, we always used to carry extra pilots for a few months in the winter. It’s clear that they are trying to push this though before the summer. You guys just need to think why. You are all being played like a fiddle. And if I hear growth one more time I’m going to puke. Just look at all the other regionals that did things with the promise of growth. You guys are going to eat your words just like them.

 

[atlcrjdriver]

Finally someone else that sees the obvious. The others blinded like 777forever who say if we call them back for the summer we will furlough again next winter. NO, we always used to carry extra pilots for a few months in the winter. It’s clear that they are trying to push this though before the summer. You guys just need to think why. You are all being played like a fiddle. And if I hear growth one more time I’m going to puke. Just look at all the other regionals that did things with the promise of growth. You guys are going to eat your words just like them.

Has the company or union wronged you in some way lately? The reason I ask is that you sound like a disgruntled employee that could go postal at any moment. The only thing I asked is that you read the TA B4 you make any decision about it. If someone asked you what it was like flying the Bombardier C-series what would you say, you hate it?

We all want our furloughees back on property but I want them back in the right way.

 

[777forever]

Finally someone else that sees the obvious. The others blinded like 777forever who say if we call them back for the summer we will furlough again next winter. NO, we always used to carry extra pilots for a few months in the winter. It’s clear that they are trying to push this though before the summer. You guys just need to think why. You are all being played like a fiddle. And if I hear growth one more time I’m going to puke. Just look at all the other regionals that did things with the promise of growth. You guys are going to eat your words just like them.

Hate to break it to you but the furloughs are not coming back until there is growth at ASA. With the pilots we have right now we can handle another summer like last year.

 

[aircombat]

Hate to break it to you but the furloughs are not coming back until there is growth at ASA. With the pilots we have right now we can handle another summer like last year.

I guess in the 2 years that you have been at ASA you have become an expert at staffing needs? I'm not saying that I am an expert. Far from it. But I don't know how we can staff a summer like last one with over 50 less pilots.

 

[aircombat]

Has the company or union wronged you in some way lately? The reason I ask is that you sound like a disgruntled employee that could go postal at any moment. The only thing I asked is that you read the TA B4 you make any decision about it. If someone asked you what it was like flying the Bombardier C-series what would you say, you hate it?

We all want our furloughees back on property but I want them back in the right way.

I'm not really disgruntled. I just don't like seeing fellow pilots get conned. It's not so much what the Union has done rather what they haven't done. ALPA has let a lot happen that is not good for the profession. Unfortunately the whole system is based on votes and people will always vote selfishly even though it may end up hurting themselves in the long run. example, relaxing scope.
If the Union wanted to secure growth at ASA they would work to merge us with Skywest. That's the only way growth will come to ASA.

 

[Tarzan]

If the Union wanted to secure growth at ASA they would work to merge us with Skywest. That's the only way growth will come to ASA.

I am all for it. Do you propose losing representation as a result? That will likely be an end result. My understanding is the reason the union had pursued it was that ALPA would likely not be in the picture as a result. If more pilots are okay with this outcome, speak up to your reps.

 

[aircombat]

I am all for it. Do you propose losing representation as a result? That will likely be an end result. My understanding is the reason the union had pursued it was that ALPA would likely not be in the picture as a result. If more pilots are okay with this outcome, speak up to your reps.

not really sure why that would have to happen. I've also heard that but haven't gotten a good reason. I suspect that we might have to revote with the combined list. I'm willing to risk it but I'm sure ALPA isn't.

 

[ASA_Aviator]

On the CRJ200, there are 337 lines in Jan. 34 lines are Naps, 270 lines are 4-days, 6 lines are 3-days and 27 are back to back 2-days or "other". So roughly 10% are Naps, 80% are 4-days, 2% are 3-days, 8% back to back 2- days or "other".

If 4 days are as efficient as they say, then they will build 60% 4-days PBS per the TA. Using the same numbers as January, of the 337 lines 202 lines will be 4-days. That would reduce 68 4 days trips to be either Naps, 3 days, or back to back 2-days.

Now, the non 4-day lines double from 20% to 40%, I am assumng Nap lines won't change, so that leaves 68 lines to be 3-days or back to back 2- days. For every 3-day, there are 4 back to back 2-days. This will yield 17 3-days and 51 back to back 2-days or "other".

IN SUMMARY, using 60% 4 days instead of 80%, and keeping the number of nap lines the same, January would have yielded 202 4-day trips, 23 3-day trips, 34 Nap lines, and 78 back to back 2 days or "other".

Here is my point, only 23 3-day trips. Even if they converted half the back to back 2-days to 3-days, that would still only be 62 3-days.

Several years ago, I held 3 day trips with weekends off. Unless you are top 10% you will never see that again.

Besides that, I don't like having first come first serve future open time. Unless you live on the computer. Junior pilots will be getting trips that more senior pilots may want. Sure senior pilots are getting most of the open time I want, but that's the way it goes. Being junior comes with a price, and we were all junior at some point in time.

Someone mentioned that having 60% 4-days is a much greater improvement to the 80% 4-days we currently have. Of course it is, why do you think they are currently making 80% 4-days?? So you think you are getting a better deal with PBS!!!!!

Also, why should we extend the contract by 2 years at a 1% pay raise, when we should be negotiating the new contract during this time. That would yield the average 3% pay raise from the end of the current contract. We are losing a 2% pay raise for those 2 years.

I don't buy this garbage.

I vote "NO"!!

Really? You WANT to be negotiating right now, when the industry is down? This is not the time to be negotiating.

 

[777forever]

I guess in the 2 years that you have been at ASA you have become an expert at staffing needs? I'm not saying that I am an expert. Far from it. But I don't know how we can staff a summer like last one with over 50 less pilots.

What kind of denial are you in? Many other experienced pilots are saying, Scott Hall said it, yet you continue to believe the furloughs will come back without PBS. All I ask is that you become an expert in common sense. Furloughs will not come back until the pilot group is at the breakpoint in terms of block hrs. When every line is blocked at 90+hrs and all reserves are breaking guarantee with ease then we have a need for pilots.

Last summer we hardly had any offers for premium open-time pickups.