No comment on ASA PBS LOA yet?

[JoeMerchant]

yeah clearly the fight to the bottom is the best solution. It worked out for ever other airline right.

...and how as being at the top worked out for every other airline that tried it in this environment?

If we can't fix the problem with scope, or if we refuse to fix the scope problem, then we are forced to play the game....As I have said for years now...Either FIX the game, or play the game...ALPA can't seem to FIX it, therefor we play the game.....

 

[GeekMaster]

all this talk about 4 days. I want to know is there anything that says that they can't assign us all a 3 day with a 2 day attached. I would rather do a 4 day.

In this system of PBS, the company doesn't build LINES. They can't just arbitrarily put a 3 day followed by 2 day on you. YOU build your line; either by listing detailed bid preferences or getting more active and bidding ACTUAL trips in the order YOU want them. The agreement requires EVERY pilot to receive a paper trail of every trip on your bid sheet. There is NO globalization in this system. In short that means if its on your bid sheet and open at the time your seniority number comes up, you get the trips. The only way you'll get extra trips thrown on you against your will is if you don't bid enough trips/preferences, (Easily solvable by you) or you are so junior there is nothing else left.

If you are that close to the bottom, just as you do now, you can choose to bid a higher quality reserve line.

 

[GeekMaster]

The answer to this question is very simple. If you noticed in the last PBS update they said that there will be no furloughs or downgrades due to PBS. Yeah because they have already done them so they can say that. They would have to call the furloughs back during the busy summer schedule if they don't get PBS. It only makes sense since they say we need 10% less pilots and yet they don't need to furlough? Vote no and watch the furloughs come back.

With or without PBS, there will be NO callbacks this summer or any other time until the block hour total reaches the level required for the company "BUSINESS MODEL". That's how they determine the number of pilots to have on the payroll. As of now, we are still overstaffed according to that model. Therefore, when the summer schedule rolls around, they simply increase the block hours as high as needed to cover it. (as opposed to keeping them below 75 the way they do now)

The 10% less statement refers to needing 10% less to do a given amount of work. They DO NEED TO FURLOUGH in their mind. According to their business model, we're still a bit fat. The contract won't let them furlough anymore. The only way PBS will save the company a dime is to put more flying at ASA. That's an unpublished incentive for the company to put flying here.

 

[GeekMaster]

If you are an FO and voting yes on this TA I hope you like the stagnation. Growth may or may not come, I’m leaning toward not come. PBS isn’t going to change that. The one thing that is certain is that we will require about 10% less captains so it will be that much longer for upgrade and we would have to grow that much just to break even.

There is an unpublished factor at work here. This LOA will not save the company any money unless they increase the flying here. IN FACT, it will prove to be a really expensive program on their part if they DON'T put extra flying here. Remember, THEY PAID FOR ALL THE RESEARCH AND TALKS.

Stagnation will come if the company is compelled to put future work elsewhere.

 

[GeekMaster]

yeah clearly the fight to the bottom is the best solution. It worked out for ever other airline right.

This LOA doesn't ask any single pilot to take a pay concession. It only saves the company money if the company increases the workload here. If they do that, pilots will be afforded the opportunity to earn more money instead of being stuck with the <75 hour lines the CR2 guys are currently getting.

 

[GeekMaster]

the 10% came from what we have been told that PBS will make us more efficient by. If we are 10% more efficient you can bet that we will carry 10% less pilots. SH said that it will reduce the need for pilots but that is ok because of the huge pilot shortage.
Your right. A lot of this is unknown. The only thing that is certain is that we are voting away peoples jobs and they don't even get to vote on this.

What it ACTUALLY means is that the first round of increased flying will go toward filling that "gap" created by the increased efficiency. THEN AND ONLY THEN will furloughs be brought back as flying levels increase above that.

Do you think that Skywest Inc will increase our flying levels enough to bring the furloughs back if this LOA fails? That's an honest question, not an attack. I'm simply a line pilot attempting to tell it not sell it; the pure facts that is.

 

[aircombat]

yes I think they will have to call back some people if we vote no. We were understaffed last summer and I believe it will be worse this summer. How can we do that with less pilots. It's not even a debate that PBS will reduce pilot needs. We live in a supply and demand world. We are reducing our demand. Not smart and will cause everything I stated.

 

[GeekMaster]

yes I think they will have to call back some people if we vote no. We were understaffed last summer and I believe it will be worse this summer. How can we do that with less pilots. It's not even a debate that PBS will reduce pilot needs. We live in a supply and demand world. We are reducing our demand. Not smart and will cause everything I stated.

The schedules they wrote last summer may have given the "appearance" of being understaffed. The reason is one of simple economics. Spread the load out as thin as possible and still be able to operate the schedule. That means more lines and fewer reserves. (and keeping those lines as low block as possible) This summer will be no different even with less people. They will simply increase the average block value per line. Flying the people you have at a 90 hour average is cheaper than bringing back the furloughs.

THE ONLY WAY the furloughs are coming back is if our block hour level goes ABOVE the business model. That will happen when INC. makes a decision to put more flying here.

 

[sayrejm]

or a pilot shortage...

 

[GeekMaster]

Most economic indicators don't support a pilot shortage at ASA for at least 3-4 years..........minimum. There are still an INCREDIBLE number of pilots on furlough in this country.

Is this a sound decision to reject an LOA based on the idea of waiting on a pilot shortage?

Reject it based on the factual information contained within it. That's a valid reason. Rejecting it for no other reason than thinking we can do better later (for whatever reason) is a rather foolish game. What if it's a good LOA now?

 

[atlcrjdriver]

If you are an FO and voting yes on this TA I hope you like the stagnation. Growth may or may not come, I’m leaning toward not come. PBS isn’t going to change that. The one thing that is certain is that we will require about 10% less captains so it will be that much longer for upgrade and we would have to grow that much just to break even.

The one pt you made that I agree w/ is that PBS won't change the stagnation much at all. What you fail to realize is how more pilots come on line. It is by either growth or attrition. With nobody hiring and retirements being nil attrition is out which leaves growth. If PBS will help make us more competative (stimulate growth) and improve QOL (ability to break up four day trips, more ctrl over skd, ability to avoid certain Cpts, etc)while they are an FO then why say no?

 

[Poppa Hodax]

[snip] ...the union and company proactively work together to try to a get a win-win for the pilots and company.

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.

 

[777forever]

yes I think they will have to call back some people if we vote no. We were understaffed last summer and I believe it will be worse this summer. How can we do that with less pilots. It's not even a debate that PBS will reduce pilot needs. We live in a supply and demand world. We are reducing our demand. Not smart and will cause everything I stated.

If the company calls back pilots for this summer they will have to furlough them again in the fall. Makes no sense to bring the furloughs back for such a short time.

We were busy last summer but not understaffed. Many reserves broke guarantee but not all did. In fact most did not even credit over 90 hrs, let alone block 90hrs. When reserves are all flying 90+hrs, lineholders are being junior manned, and we're on the cusp of cancelling tons flights due to no pilots, then we are understaffed.

And to our colleauge that commented that the company wants PBS very badly and it can't be good for the company I will say this. PBS saves the company money when ASA's flying is increased above the stupidly low level it is now. ASA is actively looking for growth with other carriers. That is very good for us. PBS allows ASA to adjust its bids and sell itself as a cost effective and efficient company.

If we do not work with the company to obtain more flying thing will not only stagnate, but get worse. I assure you, that if the pilot group does not work with the company, the abundance of 4 days will be the least of our worries.

Also, please don't use XJT as a non PBS carrier that got flying. Skywest refuses to bid contracts at a loss.

 

[asayankee]

If the company calls back pilots for this summer they will have to furlough them again in the fall. Makes no sense to bring the furloughs back for such a short time.

We were busy last summer but not understaffed. Many reserves broke guarantee but not all did. In fact most did not even credit over 90 hrs, let alone block 90hrs. When reserves are all flying 90+hrs, lineholders are being junior manned, and we're on the cusp of cancelling tons flights due to no pilots, then we are understaffed.

And to our colleauge that commented that the company wants PBS very badly and it can't be good for the company I will say this. PBS saves the company money when ASA's flying is increased above the stupidly low level it is now. ASA is actively looking for growth with other carriers. That is very good for us. PBS allows ASA to adjust its bids and sell itself as a cost effective and efficient company.

If we do not work with the company to obtain more flying thing will not only stagnate, but get worse. I assure you, that if the pilot group does not work with the company, the abundance of 4 days will be the least of our worries.

Also, please don't use XJT as a non PBS carrier that got flying. Skywest refuses to bid contracts at a loss.

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.

 

[maxcackel]

If the company calls back pilots for this summer they will have to furlough them again in the fall. Makes no sense to bring the furloughs back for such a short time.

We were busy last summer but not understaffed. Many reserves broke guarantee but not all did. In fact most did not even credit over 90 hrs, let alone block 90hrs. When reserves are all flying 90+hrs, lineholders are being junior manned, and we're on the cusp of cancelling tons flights due to no pilots, then we are understaffed.

And to our colleauge that commented that the company wants PBS very badly and it can't be good for the company I will say this. PBS saves the company money when ASA's flying is increased above the stupidly low level it is now. ASA is actively looking for growth with other carriers. That is very good for us. PBS allows ASA to adjust its bids and sell itself as a cost effective and efficient company.

If we do not work with the company to obtain more flying thing will not only stagnate, but get worse. I assure you, that if the pilot group does not work with the company, the abundance of 4 days will be the least of our worries.

Also, please don't use XJT as a non PBS carrier that got flying. Skywest refuses to bid contracts at a loss.

You don't know that they bid it at a loss, you did not see the contract. You may want to believe rumors but they are telling their own people that it was not at a loss.

 

[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...