ASA MEC endorses TA/Bonus formula published...

[JoeMerchant]

Ya'll better read the scheduling section in detail before you vote yes! If you do vote yes, look forward to 5 day trips. It's in there, among many other bad things. Look beyond the bonus and pay raises ASA pilots. Voting NO!

Hoser

Hoser, they can already build 5 day trips and they have in the past..... This actually puts more restrictions on the 5 day trips than our current agreement..... Compare and contrast......

 

[Texx]

In a conversation with BOTH my capt reps, I mentioned this issue regarding Pete, the scheduling committe et.al. Here's the answer I got.

The power invested in the scheduling committe chairman is done so by our current elected reps. This representative has a place or say so in scheduling line construction. He/she is put there to look out for the best interest of the pilot group and reports to the MEC. His/her power is NOT UNCHECKED. While he/she "does" have the power to approve 5 day trips, it is when and only when it is believed to be in the best interest of the pilot group. If the scheduling rep does approve such trips, he/she answers directly to the MEC. (better be a darn good reason was the exact quote from a capt rep)

Another consideration; 5 day trips are totally legal right now. THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN USED. They were implemented for a while on the CR7 when it flew out west. The new TA actually IMPROVES their implentation because we actually have a say on when and how they're used as opposed to what we have now.

Would you complain about a line built with 5 day trips if it were constructed as follows? 5 days on, 5 days off, repeat for a total of 15 on 15 off with say 27 hours each for a total of 81 hours and commutable on both sides. For good measure consider the possibility of duty rigs boosting the credit value a little....or not.

I'm simply saying that in a cafeteria format, if "some" choices like that were offered, I have a feeling there would be some who would LOVE to have them. (though not me, I just see the value of the choice)

I WOULD NEVER want this to be the norm or majority of the line construction. That's why I would want a rep in there helping to keep the cafeteria menu varied for EVERYONE. I agree Hoser that NOONE should have too much unchecked power. Perhaps others might also consult with our reps regarding how much empowerment and accountability is being given to this scheduling chairman postition.

Pete respresents himself only. I guess you haven't figure that one out yet have you. Call the crew planners and ask them how he works.

We had an ATR pilot volunteer to help on his committee. Pete's response, we don't need any help, the ATR is going away.

 

[GeekMaster]

Pete respresents himself only. I guess you haven't figure that one out yet have you. Call the crew planners and ask them how he works.

We had an ATR pilot volunteer to help on his committee. Pete's response, we don't need any help, the ATR is going away.

I've had excellent success dealing with Pete. While I don't give him a rubber stamp to go do his will unchecked, I do support him as the current choice for his position. For the better part of 10 years now, he has proven himself knowledgable on scheduling issues. If the pilot group as a whole disagrees however, let your reps know of your interest in having him replaced.

If you don't like the person, that doesn't mean you kill the position.

 

[Medeco]

While I agree that we as a pilot group need someone who is commited to the cause like PD is. I also believe it is important to have a rep in their, that will fight for us in a way that doesnt make the company line planners curse and cringe everythime this person walks through the doors.

PD has too many enemies in the GO for our new contract to work as it should, for the pilot group, not PD.

Medeco

Geek, if you had flown with this guy you would have different thoughts.

 

[Oakum_Boy]

People in the G.O. figure that if they have to be be miserable five days a week and get screwed as much as possible, then so should every pilot. Personally, I want someone in that position who may have enemies in the GO but isn't afraid of them.

 

[scarlet]

All we are saying is if you have a question about the Sch. section who does everyone tell you to talk to=Pete Davis.

If you fly with him, you respect him and you demand respect for your self and he will do that!

 

[Medeco]

Its one thing to be enemies. If you come up to people confrontational, they will be the same way back. Very simple.

Its another thing to be diplomatic with a smile on your face and friendly the whole time, all the while demanding that our rights be met.

Medeco

 

[Oakum_Boy]

Well that's a nice thought, but I have been here long enough to know that 90% of GO types hate the fact that pilots make more money and have more time off. Don't be misled, it is very personal for those people, and we need solid leadership and representation in that dept.

 

[WWEfan]

The scheduling chairman is appointed by the MEC chairman. I imagine he can be removed if there is any abuse of his new powers.

 

[John Pennekamp]

The ramblings about Pete bring thoughts of a personal bias or vendetta. It's well know that people such as of EF, and Hoser don't like him personally.

I was concerned that Pete had given himself too much power. From what NT and others have told me, they will be watching him very closely. I'm satisfied with that. As for the expansion of the max scheduled hours, I don't like it, but don't dislike it enough to vote no over the issue.

You all have to realize that a contract is give and take. You just don't get everything you want and nothing you don't. That's why it's called NEGOTIATIONS. You have to give something to get something. Yes, there's stuff in there that sucks, but also stuff that's good. I think the CNC found a good balance of this.

 

[Medeco]

Well that's a nice thought, but I have been here long enough to know that 90% of GO types hate the fact that pilots make more money and have more time off. Don't be misled, it is very personal for those people, and we need solid leadership and representation in that dept.

So have I, and Im not mislead.

I dont disagree with your thoughts, but I think for things to change so do the people.

Everyone agrees BL needs to go, for change to happen, why not on our side too?

Our former MEC chairman is a perfect expample of what we dont need, luckly we have new people with level heads.

Medeco

 

[John Pennekamp]

Our former MEC chairman is a perfect expample of what we dont need, luckly we have new people with level heads.

Medeco

Not disagreeing with you but I just wanted to point out that 3 of the 6 MEC members were on the MEC with the previous MEC chairman, and as for the current chairman, let's just say apples don't fall far from tree. DN has a lot of his own ideas, but in many ways he was molded by BA, and still consults with BA.

 

[HoserASA]

He/she is put there to look out for the best interest of the pilot group and reports to the MEC. His/her power is NOT UNCHECKED. While he/she "does" have the power to approve 5 day trips, it is when and only when it is believed to be in the best interest of the pilot group. If the scheduling rep does approve such trips, he/she answers directly to the MEC. (better be a darn good reason was the exact quote from a capt rep)
I have been informed by someone on the CNC that what you write is fact. Perhaps the way I read the TA led me to my interpetation regarding this section. I am still digesting the TA, and what this CNC rep wrote me.

Another consideration; 5 day trips are totally legal right now. THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN USED.
I know that, and how popular were they? Did those lines allow 5 on, 5 off? I heard alot of complaining about them from those who flew them.

Would you complain about a line built with 5 day trips if it were constructed as follows? 5 days on, 5 days off, repeat for a total of 15 on 15 off with say 27 hours each for a total of 81 hours and commutable on both sides.
I would not like it personally as I prefer 3 on 4 off built to 20-22 hours. Recall when DFW closed, and there were 80 or more lines that were 3 on 4 off? Those who were awarded such lines were very happy and content. As you say, I'm sure some would like 5 on 5 off, most wouldn't.

I agree Hoser that NOONE should have too much unchecked power.
I have been informed by the before mentioned CNC person that the Sch Chair does answer to the MEC before something like this would occur, and only if it were beneficial. As I respect this person, and believe what was written to me, I'll accept his reasoning and answer.

Hoser

 

[HoserASA]

The ramblings about Pete bring thoughts of a personal bias or vendetta. It's well know that people such as of EF, and Hoser don't like him personally.

Can't speak for the other party you refer to, but I don't dislike Pete, nor have any bias towards him. Someone is feeding you wrong info, at least as to me. Ask me first next time before you accuse me ok?

Hoser

 

[Texx]

All we are saying is if you have a question about the Sch. section who does everyone tell you to talk to=Pete Davis.

If you fly with him, you respect him and you demand respect for your self and he will do that!

hahahahahahaha....Pete is not the Messiah. There are many others that know just as much, if not more, about Section 13.

 

[GeekMaster]

As for the new 28.5, I also discussed this with the reps. To them it was perceived as concessionary. However there was simple logic behind it. Many of the pilots actually like to fly heavy block. Commuters especially like to trade trips around so as to create longer stretches of days off. The problem for many of those pilots came in many of their mutual trades, open time pick ups and swaps were constantly denied due to being over the 27.5 buffer by the slimmest of margins.

As with any provision in the contract, there are ways to use it to your advantage or have it used against you. I personally like the idea of the higher buffer BUT, like any other sane rational pilot, I don't want it used against me to make me work 6 days in a row.

I guess I'll have to weigh this clause carefully, but I'm leaning toward not being able to justify throwing out the whole cow over one bad hamburger. For those who didn't get that, I don't think it's worth voting no over this alone.

 

[asayankee]

I think everybody has missed the biggest line in the scheduling section regarding the Scheduling Committe.... on page 67 line 19 "While the ASC members may make recommendations, the Company is under NO obligation to follow or even CONSIDER recommendations"

Hmmmm.... sounds like we have NO say in any of this. How is this a change for the better?????

"Denied....low coverage"

 

[Jmoney]

Scheduling....

Pete did a good job with the rigs. They should really, really help us out.

That being said, I am generally in favor of anything that keeps picking Pete out of the plane. We are all safer for that.

-Maybe he can find some more scheduling stuff to do which involves being him away from an airplane.

 

[Speedtape]

Pete respresents himself only. I guess you haven't figure that one out yet have you. Call the crew planners and ask them how he works.

We had an ATR pilot volunteer to help on his committee. Pete's response, we don't need any help, the ATR is going away.

TEX,
I have read all your posts on this matter. It is starting to sound more personal on your part than substantial. Evaluate your motives!

 

[Speedtape]

TEX,
Will you volunteer for the Scheduling Committee? Someone needs to oversee the CR2 line construction.