No comment on ASA PBS LOA yet?

[aircombat]

As for someone on reserve I'd rather have a line of 65hrs and get paid for 75 than a month of reserve being scheduling's b!th and still only get 75hrs of pay. I'll take the junior line that is all that is left over after the senior guys get what they want. It's not like that is any different than if I was holding a junior line.

I’ve been on reserve for years also but I realize that without PBS we will be able to hold a decent line a lot sooner. I don’t know of many lines that are 5 days on 2 days off. With PBS that’s possible. And leftovers is what you will get. For many years after you would have regularly held a decent line. Try to look past the possible short term gain and look to the future.

 

[OCP]

I’ve been on reserve for years also but I realize that without PBS we will be able to hold a decent line a lot sooner. I don’t know of many lines that are 5 days on 2 days off. With PBS that’s possible. And leftovers is what you will get. For many years after you would have regularly held a decent line. Try to look past the possible short term gain and look to the future.

I am. Likely we won't see a down turn again like this for quite a while and I hope I'm not here to deal with it. But someone in the future will be here and may have to sit reserve for years. They will benefit from the improvements we make today.
And like was said earlier. The company can make 5 on 1 off right now if they want. He!! they can make 6 on 1 off if it fits duty times, but they don't. So what is the difference that makes you think PBS will make them do that?

 

[aircombat]

I get your point, but why aren't the lines like that already? There's nothing in the contract preventing it at the current time?

The min day credit still makes it unlikely. The only time the company builds a four day with no productivity is when the need to cover the overnight outweighs the inefficiency of paying the credit.

Your point is valid, but they already have the ability to build the lines in such a manner, but they never have, so what makes you think PBS will inspire them to do so?

I'm not arguing here. I'm just asking?

That is a good question and I am also not really trying to argue with people, just trying to get my own questions answered and to get some people to think about the future.

We all know that the company wants PBS because it requires less pilots and they will save a small amount. It will be a balancing act between min day, line credit, reserve staffing, ect…. I’m not pretending to predict exactly what will happen. Just what could happen.

One way to reduce staffing is by making us more available by having pilots standing around to fill possible voids. The reason that it’s not so noticeable now is because the inefficient pairings are placed in lines with more efficient pairings. With PBS the senior guys will cherry pick the high credit pairings and all that will be left is the low block pairings. In order to reach the minimum line value you will have the minimum number of days off.

From hearing a little of what people want, no integration, more 3 days. I’m assuming that people want more days off. PBS might do the exact opposite. Everyone knows that PBS allows the company to do the same amount of work with less people. How are we going to do that with more days off and less reserve staffing?

 

[aircombat]

I am. Likely we won't see a down turn again like this for quite a while and I hope I'm not here to deal with it. But someone in the future will be here and may have to sit reserve for years. They will benefit from the improvements we make today.

Well if you want to think into the future. PBS requires less pilots. I think that the future pilots would rather be a reserve FO than unemployed. Or some senior FOs be a reserve captain than a line holding FO.

 

[www.]

It’s funny how you guys make it sound like everyone is going to get exactly what they want. It’s not going to be much different then now. We get to bid for our days off and trip type. You might have a slightly greater chance of getting a particular day off or destination, however you will be paying for it greatly the rest of the month. 4 days on 3 days off is a lot better than 5 days on 2 days off. The company will still have control over the pairings and that is everything. I hope you commuters enjoy the back to back trips because I foresee many more of those.

Ladies and gents I think we have a NO vote...let's move on to other business.

 

[www.]

That is a good question and I am also not really trying to argue with people, just trying to get my own questions answered and to get some people to think about the future.

We all know that the company wants PBS because it requires less pilots and they will save a small amount. It will be a balancing act between min day, line credit, reserve staffing, ect…. I’m not pretending to predict exactly what will happen. Just what could happen.

One way to reduce staffing is by making us more available by having pilots standing around to fill possible voids. The reason that it’s not so noticeable now is because the inefficient pairings are placed in lines with more efficient pairings. With PBS the senior guys will cherry pick the high credit pairings and all that will be left is the low block pairings. In order to reach the minimum line value you will have the minimum number of days off.

From hearing a little of what people want, no integration, more 3 days. I’m assuming that people want more days off. PBS might do the exact opposite. Everyone knows that PBS allows the company to do the same amount of work with less people. How are we going to do that with more days off and less reserve staffing?

If you have questions why not go to a roadshow and ask the people that are involved.

 

[aircombat]

If you have questions why not go to a roadshow and ask the people that are involved.

I am planning on attending the road shows. I’m not confident that I will get my questions answered. If you have been to one before you know that it is mostly the union guys on the soap box. What would you expect they are running the show. They are sales men and good ones at that. Since they are completely bias, all the positives will be addressed and highlighted while the negatives will have to be solicited and then promptly downplayed by a union member. If they wanted us to have an accurate view of what this LOA could involve they would assign a union member to represent the negative side of PBS and then have a productive debate. This is going to be like attending one of those timeshare sales pitches.

 

[buscap]

Dude, I would like to know why you think the union is running it up our arses on this. I just don't see their motivation or reward for doing so?

If it's just a matter of their seniority, well the current system already favors them on that and by your logic the PBS system would jeopardize their seniority based QOL.

Yes, they negotiated this.

But this was not a contract negotiation. With no NMB involvement they have no reason to jump though hoops and demonstrate their willingness to compromise by slapping lipstick on the pig, knowing full well and perhaps hoping we will vote no.

Obviously they are in favor of the LOA, or we wouldn't be looking at it. But I have not detected any deception on their part. When I've asked questions, they've been answered. Even when the answer was not pro-PBS.

I'm cool with you voting no, but the ALPA slam is misplaced.

 

[aircombat]

Dude, I would like to know why you think the union is running it up our arses on this. I just don't see their motivation or reward for doing so?

If it's just a matter of their seniority, well the current system already favors them on that and by your logic the PBS system would jeopardize their seniority based QOL.

Yes, they negotiated this.

But this was not a contract negotiation. With no NMB involvement they have no reason to jump though hoops and demonstrate their willingness to compromise by slapping lipstick on the pig, knowing full well and perhaps hoping we will vote no.

Obviously they are in favor of the LOA, or we wouldn't be looking at it. But I have not detected any deception on their part. When I've asked questions, they've been answered. Even when the answer was not pro-PBS.

I'm cool with you voting no, but the ALPA slam is misplaced.

I’m not sure what I said that made you think I don’t believe the very senior people will have a better schedule. If it is about the low block three days possibly being paired with other pairings, I wouldn’t really consider those people as being “senior”. It’s clear the senior pilots will get slightly better schedules and that is a big motivator for the union to support it. Many things that ALPA has supported in the past has been good for the senior pilots but at the peril of the future pilots and the profession. I don’t think that should be surprising. The representatives are senior, most of their friends are also, and I imagine senior pilots vote more. As I’ve said earlier I also think a big motivator for this LOA right now is because the company doesn’t want to call the furloughees back (maybe years from now). So the union could have used that in order to secure a "better" PBS deal outside of section 6.

And if you haven’t seen any deception you haven’t been looking. The growth thing is deception. Saying PBS requires less people but there will be no furloughs or downgrades is in my book deceptive, they have already done them. Saying the company can not save a dime with PBS until we grow is just a flat out lie.

 

[buscap]

And if you haven’t seen any deception you haven’t been looking. The growth thing is deception. Saying PBS requires less people but there will be no furloughs or downgrades is in my book deceptive, they have already done them. Saying the company can not save a dime with PBS until we grow is just a flat out lie.

Ok then.

Well put, but I just don't see it that way.

Thanks for hanging in there on the the debate.

This is big and it does need to be properly flogged.