USAPA's Illegal Job Action Causing Pilot Terminations.

[get2flyin]

Not a problem, was just curious. the line that was posted, seems about the same as what we get with our lines, maybe a little worse actually.....

How was it worse?

 

[charlie2]

Charlie how many active line pilots do you have on the east and what is the current fleet count?

Can't give exact info but about 210 aircraft and about 2400 active pilots on the east.

 

[charlie2]

Ask your East FO peers if they want to operate separately or combine lists. We both know the majority over there are perfectly happy to operate separately, even insisting it would be "unsafe" to do otherwise. If they are so sure they will get the DOH staple, why isn't everyone chomping to merge the groups? Because it isn't going to happen with DOH.

Also, the company might not pass fuel savings on to us, but rest assured they won't bat an eye at taking things away if they start losing money. Three engine taxi and keep thinking the company is going to blink at the negotiating table.

I'm sorry if I come across as combative. It isn't my nature or my intent, but I'm getting tired of the endless gamesmanship that appears to be USAPA operating mode. As long as they keep pushing the "we're going to take what ever we think is ours from whoever we please (ME)", then I'll continue to think they can pretty much piss off.

You're not combative, I've learned many things through a lively debate on FI.com. To be honest most of the pilots that I talk to would be very happy with separate ops for the obvious reasons. It wont happen though because all litigation has one thing in common...it eventually ends and when it does there will be a single list and I probably will have a captain who started flying many many years after I did. But, if for some strange reason the east ends up winning, the west pilots will own the whole operation in 10 years anyway so even if they lose they win.

 

[LearLove]

Charlie how many active line pilots do you have on the east and what is the current fleet count?

this is from the july bid:



here is some info from the bid that just closed for July 2011.

total flying positions - 2660

total CA - 1231
total FO - 1429 (1377 filled)

open FO positions - 52


Breakdown [base:equipment - #ca/#fo]

CLT:767/757 - 61/92
CLT:A330 - 39/71
CLT:A319/320/321 - 363/358 and 14 open FO positions
CLT:737 - 150/150

DCA:A319/320/321 - 86/76 and 9 open FO positions
DCA:737 - 38/38 and 1 open FO position

PHL:767/757 - 103/145
PHL:A330 - 84/170
PHL:737 - 50/46
PHL:A319/320/321 - 179/172 and 5 open FO positions
PHL:E190 - 78/59 and 23 open FO positions


the fleet count is around 217 or 218 (202 boeing and airbus) and 15 e190's. The 190's do not count toward the min fleet. Min fleet on the east is something like 202 or 203 (boeing/airbus) which is about where we are now.

 

[charlie2]

Thanks Lear, I suppose I coulda done that but I'm lazy.

 

[Bringupthebird]

It is more efficient than other line building tools which equates to needing less pilots. But since (unfortunately) we are going to be in litigation for a year or two (the companies suit) and in negotiations for a year or two maybe when we start retiring in large amounts maybe PBS won't be a furlough generator. Maybe it would just slow our hiring a bit. Remember USAPA MUST do everything it can to preserve jobs.

It might be more efficient, but that is driven more by work rules than a bid preparation tool.

Stop reacting in fear of the unknown.

USAPA is doing all it can to preserve EAST jobs. That's why they are in the litigation they are in.

 

[charlie2]

It might be more efficient, but that is driven more by work rules than a bid preparation tool.

Stop reacting in fear of the unknown.

USAPA is doing all it can to preserve EAST jobs. That's why they are in the litigation they are in.

Yes if there was any time to have a new thing that, according to USAPA, would result in fewer pilots would be during heavy attrition but that doesn't start for 18 months or so. I don't fear PBS and what I know about it has been through the postings on this board and I do want to learn more about it and will pass this to other eastinfections. That being said I have to rely on my elected reps to know about this kind of stuff and make decisions and if you read my earlier post with the NAC update, they believe that it would definitely mean furloughs.

 

[Guppiedriver]

Yes if there was any time to have a new thing that, according to USAPA, would result in fewer pilots would be during heavy attrition but that doesn't start for 18 months or so. I don't fear PBS and what I know about it has been through the postings on this board and I do want to learn more about it and will pass this to other eastinfections. That being said I have to rely on my elected reps to know about this kind of stuff and make decisions and if you read my earlier post with the NAC update, they believe that it would definitely mean furloughs.

Our PBS guru just read your NAC's update about the ongoing contract negotiations, including the inaccuracies about PBS. He will be posting a rebuttal in the next couple of days. If you don't get it through the normal USAPA emails, I'll post it here.

Back in 2000, we had a bunch of guys here, including union types, that also claimed we would furlough pilots once PBS was implemented. Guess what? We switched over to PBS and we didn't lose one pilot.

 

[TWA Dude]

There's nothing about PBS that's intrinsically more efficient, it's just a tool to create a monthly schedule from individual trips rather than having to choose from company-created months. The programming that PBS follows is where efficiency may derive. For instance, PBS can be programmed to allow conflict bidding. Realistically no airline would allow for that but the point is PBS is an easier way for pilots to exercise their seniority to get the best possible schedule before having to deal with trip trading. That's the reason so many pilots prefer it to line-bidding.

 

[Boeing747Driver]

this is from the july bid:



here is some info from the bid that just closed for July 2011.

total flying positions - 2660

total CA - 1231
total FO - 1429 (1377 filled)

open FO positions - 52


Breakdown [base:equipment - #ca/#fo]

CLT:767/757 - 61/92
CLT:A330 - 39/71
CLT:A319/320/321 - 363/358 and 14 open FO positions
CLT:737 - 150/150

DCA:A319/320/321 - 86/76 and 9 open FO positions
DCA:737 - 38/38 and 1 open FO position

PHL:767/757 - 103/145
PHL:A330 - 84/170
PHL:737 - 50/46
PHL:A319/320/321 - 179/172 and 5 open FO positions
PHL:E190 - 78/59 and 23 open FO positions


the fleet count is around 217 or 218 (202 boeing and airbus) and 15 e190's. The 190's do not count toward the min fleet. Min fleet on the east is something like 202 or 203 (boeing/airbus) which is about where we are now.

We have 1401 positions for the August Schedule. I think we have about 122 A/C. 11.5 pilots per A/C.

 

[charlie2]

There's nothing about PBS that's intrinsically more efficient, it's just a tool to create a monthly schedule from individual trips rather than having to choose from company-created months. The programming that PBS follows is where efficiency may derive. For instance, PBS can be programmed to allow conflict bidding. Realistically no airline would allow for that but the point is PBS is an easier way for pilots to exercise their seniority to get the best possible schedule before having to deal with trip trading. That's the reason so many pilots prefer it to line-bidding.

I know we have our differances but I think everyone would have to agree that if management really wants something it may not be good for pilots. If PBS isn't more efficient (needing fewer pilots) than why does management want it so badly?

 

[TWA Dude]

If PBS isn't more efficient (needing fewer pilots) than why does management want it so badly?

Because they know they'll get the efficiencies they want from a pilot group with no leverage.

 

[charlie2]

Because they know they'll get the efficiencies they want from a pilot group with no leverage.

Yes it is more efficient. We finally agree!

 

[Bringupthebird]

If management doesn't get PBS they will take the value of it out of other areas and USLOPA doesn't have the leverage to do a thing about it. Why would you pay dearly for something that will not cost you anything? Ask your reps that question (if they even take questions).

 

[LearLove]

FWIW - I'd be more willing to entertain the idea of PBS if management including a guarantee of no reductions as a result.

 

[get2flyin]

fwiw - i'd be more willing to entertain the idea of pbs if management including a guarantee of no reductions as a result.

Stop being reasonable!

 

[charlie2]

FWIW - I'd be more willing to entertain the idea of PBS if management including a guarantee of no reductions as a result.

Me too but they haven't offered it...why? Exactly.

 

[charlie2]

If management doesn't get PBS they will take the value of it out of other areas and USLOPA doesn't have the leverage to do a thing about it. Why would you pay dearly for something that will not cost you anything? Ask your reps that question (if they even take questions).

What's the "value" to management?

 

[cactusboy53]

Thanks for posting that. It may be a great tool for you west guys but for us it would be too painful to implement...meaning furloughs.

No matter what system you use to bid (paper, PBS, etc.), the trips constructed must be flown by someone. I disagree with the senior :erm: NAC negotiators: PBS DOES NOT MEAN FEWER PILOT JOBS. Someone still has to do the work created by the company.

When I was hired at AWA, PBS just started. We hired like gangbusters! If we vote in PBS and make sure that we have minimum fleet and hours addressed.....NO FURLOUGHS. If we really got with the program and stopped trying to dodge the Nicolau (be still my heart), maybe management might have time to work on growth & development plans (since they won't have to worry about who is wearing what lanyard).

Chuck; you're a sharp guy.....stop buying into ALL of the USAPA bull-honkey.

 

[cactusboy53]

Here is one FO that responded to my request. He stated that it was important for him to work Sun-Wed every week:

LINE: LH 289 FO **************************************************
PHX 320 Aug 2011 from 08/ 1 to 08/31 2011

Date Trip Check-in Flight(City) Layover Release Block Credit
---- -------- --------- ------------------- ------- -------- ------- -------
M 1 C/I
T 2 C/I
W 3 C/I We 19:15 1801 1802
T 4
F 5
S 6
S 7 8296 20:50 PHX 0689(EWR) 1101
M 8 " 0497(CLT)-0497(DEN) 15:38
T 9 " 0073(PHX)-0269(SMF)
" -0268(PHX) Tu 21:17 15:43 15:45
W 10
T 11
F 12
S 13
S 14 8824 21:55 PHX 0258(PHL) 13:22
M 15 " 0430(LAS) 11:52
T 16 " 0603(PHX)-0571(MCO) 10:50
W 17 " 0303(CLT)-0303(PHX) We 14:29 20:56 2100
T 18
F 19
S 20
S 21 8820 21:40 PHX 0258(PHL) 10:53
M 22 " 0074(SEA) 1307
T 23 " 0534(CLT) 17:19
W 24 " 0399(LAS)-0609(PHX) We 17:58 2109 2109
T 25
F 26
S 27
S 28 8138 800 PHX 0325(GDL) 15:52
M 29 " 0324(PHX)-0231(DTW) 14:32
T 30 " 0472(PHX) Tu 9:24 13:58 15:45
W 31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TAFB : 295:28 Excess Credit: 000
Total Calendar Days Off : 14 Total Block : 89:47
Credit Range : [7800 9200] Total Credit : 91:41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of Line Desired:
Desire Regular Line

No Fly List:

Other options:
Accept a 24 hr period instead of 1 calendar day: NO
Request training if eligible: NO
Accept same day report after a late release: NO
Accept to sell days off: NO
Request long call reserve line: NO

Selected GDs:

Conditional bids:
GRANTED LEVEL BIDS


Regular Line Bids:
OCC. SCORE BIDS
1.00 40.0 40 pts Desire Sat Off Sa 06 AUG 02:30-Su 07 AUG 02:29
1.00 40.0 40 pts Desire Sat Off Sa 13 AUG 02:30-Su 14 AUG 02:29
1.00 40.0 40 pts Desire Sat Off Sa 20 AUG 02:30-Su 21 AUG 02:29
1.00 40.0 40 pts Desire Sat Off Sa 27 AUG 02:30-Su 28 AUG 02:29
-0.00 0.0 40 pts Avoid Sat Work Sa 03 SEP 02:30-Su 04 SEP 02:29
-0.00 0.0 40 pts Avoid Sat Work Sa 10 SEP 02:30-Su 11 SEP 02:29
-0.00 0.0 20 pts Avoid Breaks less than 2 days (score by day)
73.65 957.5 13 pts Desire Credit Time
-230.72 -692.2 3 pts Avoid TAFB (Time Away From Base)

Total 425.3