Any new ABX info?

[MJH767]

nitefr8dog--my point is this--what I'm hearing is a certain group of people don't like N/S lines so we have to limit if not totally eliminate these lines. What no one seems to want to admit is that there is a large group who like the lines and don't want to eliminate them. To make matters worse, many of the don't likes aren't in the 76. There are plenty of lines designed for commuters, there is no reason we can't have lines for non-commuters. For quite a while now some 767 trip pairings have been such that they don't fit into our long-standing scheduling rules. Sooner or later we will have to address this.

 

[GoABX]

I think the chief concern (accurate or not) of those against those lines is 1) It is extra flexibility for the company that helps staff with few pilots and 2) it is a principle issue that the company has violated the spirit of the side letter whereby we helped them out for the 76's introduction and they are slapping us in the face by still calling the 76 a new aircraft.

 

[LarryinTN]

nitefr8dog--my point is this--what I'm hearing is a certain group of people don't like N/S lines so we have to limit if not totally eliminate these lines. What no one seems to want to admit is that there is a large group who like the lines and don't want to eliminate them.

The line construction rules are there largely to protect the junior guys who get stuck with whatever is left. If the N/S lines are being forced down to junior guys who don't want them then we need to cut back. As long as everyone who gets them wants them they aren't a problem but that's apparently not the case right now.

 

[Box-Hauler]

I think the chief concern (accurate or not) of those against those lines is 1) It is extra flexibility for the company that helps staff with few pilots and 2) it is a principle issue that the company has violated the spirit of the side letter whereby we helped them out for the 76's introduction and they are slapping us in the face by still calling the 76 a new aircraft.

GoABX is correct. The company is using the side letter to get productivity without anything for the crew memebers. (Yes I know people like the lines, but what if they did not like them, the company would still make them.) We need a drop dead cluase in the ANA language. It was sure stupidity not to have one in the side letter.

The company has already demonstrated that they will continue on with whatever "deals" we make with them to get ANA off the ground. The company will not stop whatever special scheduling paramaters we give them unless they are forced to. Has the company ever said "hey I know the 76 is not new anymore, so lets make all those 76 lines conform to the rules of the contract and we can forget all about that crazy side letter.

The company will not give up any productivty gains we give them without a knock down drag out hair pulling fight! WE MUST HAVE A DROP DEAD CLUASE IN THE ANA LANGUAGE. If we have no drop dead clause or whatever you call it we will be flying 23 days straight reguardless of whatever ANA flying we do. Even if we transit through the U.S. and could esily crew swap to a standard schedule ABX management will not give up the added productivity that adds money directly to their pockets.

QOL is distant second compared to bonuses for management.

 

[LarryinTN]

If we have no drop dead clause or whatever you call it we will be flying 23 days straight reguardless of whatever ANA flying we do. Even if we transit through the U.S. and could esily crew swap to a standard schedule ABX management will not give up the added productivity that adds money directly to their pockets.

The 23-day provision only applies to trips which commercial in and out of Asia for ANA flying. If you fly to/from Asia then you're back under straight Article 23.

 

[penguin22]

I think the chief concern (accurate or not) of those against those lines is 1) It is extra flexibility for the company that helps staff with few pilots and 2) it is a principle issue that the company has violated the spirit of the side letter whereby we helped them out for the 76's introduction and they are slapping us in the face by still calling the 76 a new aircraft.

Somebody needs to explain to me how a line that always has either 18 or 19 days off in a month is just "extra flexibility for the company that helps staff with few pilots"

 

[abxaviator]

Somebody needs to explain to me how a line that always has either 18 or 19 days off in a month is just "extra flexibility for the company that helps staff with few pilots"

Because it 's not 18 or 19 calendar days free of duty, to me a day going in to ILN at 1400 or finishing at 1300 is NOT a day off. Count the "X's", usually only 10 or 11 days actually off and there is no need to comply with minimum days off either. If the lines were made to have 15 X-days and meet all other line construction rules, there would be additional lines.

 

[Box-Hauler]

The 23-day provision only applies to trips which commercial in and out of Asia for ANA flying. If you fly to/from Asia then you're back under straight Article 23.

I am trying to think like the company here so bear with me:

Lets say the trip starts in Asia and transits the U.S. (maybe even Alaska). Are you saying that they could not fly us over to Asia just to get the 23 days of productivity from us? That is definately something they would do if they could.

 

[Box-Hauler]

Because it 's not 18 or 19 calendar days free of duty, to me a day going in to ILN at 1400 or finishing at 1300 is NOT a day off. Count the "X's", usually only 10 or 11 days actually off and there is no need to comply with minimum days off either. If the lines were made to have 15 X-days and meet all other line construction rules, there would be additional lines.

As said above there would be "additional lines" which equals MORE PILOTS, MORE OPPORTUNITY, MORE UPGRADES, MORE MORE MORE.

So what am I missing. Why do we (the pilot group as a whole) want to keep these N/S lines?

Yes I would love to have "local" lines for guys who want some flexability, but lets slay one draggon at a time.

 

[LarryinTN]

Lets say the trip starts in Asia and transits the U.S. (maybe even Alaska). Are you saying that they could not fly us over to Asia just to get the 23 days of productivity from us?

The 23 day schedule is only additional productivity to them because of the $9000 commercial deadheads and the "lost" days they entail. You still work only half of the days in your three-month bid period and have the other half off and at home.

With a 23 on/off schedule you're losing 13% of your work days to commercialling. If it were a 30 on/off schedule, as the company wanted, you'd lose only 10% of your work days to commercialling. If you tried to do it with the current 8-day blocks you'd be losing 38% of your work days to commercialling.

If the company had a way to have us work while flying to/from asia they reclaim the 13% productivity that is now being lost to commercialling days plus they save a ~$9000 round trip airline ticket per 23-day block. That sounds to me like some pretty strong motivation for them to use any opportunities to work us to/from Asia instead of commercialling into a 23-day block.