Reserves at ASA can pick up open time now!

[GeekMaster]

For all of you guys going off half cocked, reserves DO get paid the advertised value of the trip for trips flown on your days off. If a trip is posted at 200%, you get 200%. If it's posted at 150%, that's what you get. Look on the ALPA web board under the scheduling section. I think it's under the "another MOU" topic. The reps answered that question very clearly.

Some of you guys on here really do need Xanax to calm down. You shoot first and ask questions later. Don't we already have a specific chief pilot that does that?

 

[JustaNumber]

For all of you guys going off half cocked, reserves DO get paid the advertised value of the trip for trips flown on your days off. If a trip is posted at 200%, you get 200%. If it's posted at 150%, that's what you get. Look on the ALPA web board under the scheduling section. I think it's under the "another MOU" topic. The reps answered that question very clearly.

Some of you guys on here really do need Xanax to calm down. You shoot first and ask questions later. Don't we already have a specific chief pilot that does that?

I get my information from original sources, not someone's opinion on an ALPA web board. I can't take the ALPA web board to a judge. I read the MOU very carefully, and reading it like a lawyer, the company does not offer premium pay to reserves; in fact if they didn't pay a reserve guy 200%, it would hold up in court. If the company feels like being generous, that's great, but they don't have to.

The MOU is broken down into 4 sections, labeled A through D. Sections A and B are clearly titled to pertain to Regular pilots only. In these sections, 150% and 200% pay is discussed. Section C concerns Reserve pilots, and it clearly does not discuss 150% or 200% pay. In fact, to the contrary it clearly states that such trips will be paid above minimum guarantee. No 200% above guarantee, just "above guarantee."

It may have been the intention of the MEC to include reserve pilots in premium pay, but this isn't specified, and as usual there is a hole you could drive a 747 through in the language. Let's hope the company has some ethics here, but I'm not optimistic.

BTW, the Xanax and jumping the gun comment was way off-base and uncalled for.

 

[SpaceShipEarth]

The above is exactly what the scheduler told me right before I said "never mind, then." No premium for reserves.

 

[JustaNumber]

The above is exactly what the scheduler told me right before I said "never mind, then." No premium for reserves.

^^ I hope management reads these boards. I guess they're not really serious about covering all this flying.

 

[aircombat]

Sounds like a case of just something else to whine about.

Gets old doesn't it.

I’m sure that you, being a line holder, will start caring when you want to trade a trip out or pick up something but there is no open time. Instead scheduling will just constantly mess with your schedule because of lack of reserves.
What this really is, is a prime example of how the union has always bent over backwards to support the company in doing whatever it takes to not have to hire or upgrade anybody. A real union would fight for wages so we can support our families without having to sacrifice our time off. Not ALPA.

 

[wms]

Well I don't know what our line bidding system was because there is no question our PBS system is superior, especially when it comes to vacation

Don't get too used to it. We won't have PBS in the jcba. And the way things go we prob'ly won't have the line bidding system xjet guys are so proud of, either.

 

[OCP]

Don't get too used to it. We won't have PBS in the jcba. And the way things go we prob'ly won't have the line bidding system xjet guys are so proud of, either.

So when no one can agree on what bidding system we have and we finally go to an arbitrator. The company says "We want PBS" and the union says "We don't want PBS". Who wins?
Well the arbitrator is going to look at the industry to find the industry standard. That is going to be PBS. So what do you think they'll decide on?
Who doesn't have PBS? XJT, Eagle, and Comair maybe?
Now if we focused our energies on improving control over pairing construction and rules that surround our PBS we may not have to go to an arbitrator.

 

[Redan]

So when no one can agree on what bidding system we have and we finally go to an arbitrator. The company says "We want PBS" and the union says "We don't want PBS". Who wins?
Well the arbitrator is going to look at the industry to find the industry standard. That is going to be PBS. So what do you think they'll decide on?
Who doesn't have PBS? XJT, Eagle, and Comair maybe?
Now if we focused our energies on improving control over pairing construction and rules that surround our PBS we may not have to go to an arbitrator.

Bingo! Thank you!
Just as so many of us keep saying, the problem is not PBS, but the weak contract language in the LOA allowing company far too much latitude in line/pairing construction, etc. Examples: allowing high credit thresholds and low credit trips, prevalence of four day trips, only 16 hours credit for 4 days of AQP.

 

[Freebrd]

Agree! Keep what we have (PBS) and improve credits (6 hrs each day for AQP), drop that 60% of the lines 4 day bullcrap down to oh, say, 30-40%, 3 days 50%, whatever, but improve pairing construction!

They'll want to deal on Vacation Low (Co hates it) so we can negotiate for these improvements but unfortunately Vacation Low will have to be altered. Thoughts????

 

[Redan]

Agree! Keep what we have (PBS) and improve credits (6 hrs each day for AQP), drop that 60% of the lines 4 day bullcrap down to oh, say, 30-40%, 3 days 50%, whatever, but improve pairing construction!

They'll want to deal on Vacation Low (Co hates it) so we can negotiate for these improvements but unfortunately Vacation Low will have to be altered. Thoughts????

Yes, those sound like reasonable goals!
Many of us fail to understand the company imperative of 4 day trips vs 3 day trips of similar credit. Many of us would prefer to come in and really work for 3 days then have the ability to hold more days off...as we used to be able to do (as well as chose from a wide variety of trips from naps to day lines to 2, 3, 4 day trips). Why does company prefer the 4 day trips (as well as high threshold months with low credit trips) instead of more productive 3 day trips? BECAUSE THEY WANT US DUTIED IN! The efficiency of the trip isn't the top priority for them, it's that if we're dutied in we're just one step away from being on reserve.

 

[Freebrd]

BECAUSE THEY WANT US DUTIED IN! The efficiency of the trip isn't the top priority for them, it's that if we're dutied in we're just one step away from being on reserve.

Tally Ho!

 

[JustaNumber]

They'll want to deal on Vacation Low (Co hates it) so we can negotiate for these improvements but unfortunately Vacation Low will have to be altered. Thoughts????

I agree. I think everybody would agree that senior guys flying a total of four days of the month with just one week of vacation is not reasonable or cost efficient. I'm sure we'd all like to be on the receiving end of that pork, but no company can survive like that. We should ALL be paid well for a hard day's work; any other outcome will not be sustainable.

 

[Redan]

Agree! Keep what we have (PBS) and improve credits (6 hrs each day for AQP), drop that 60% of the lines 4 day bullcrap down to oh, say, 30-40%, 3 days 50%, whatever, but improve pairing construction!

They'll want to deal on Vacation Low (Co hates it) so we can negotiate for these improvements but unfortunately Vacation Low will have to be altered. Thoughts????

And no, no dealing on Vacation Low. I'm sorry, but our company has had it far too good for far too long. The issues mentioned above including the pairing construction/ 4 days/ high threshold with low credit trips/ the half pay for training/ our onerous reserve system/ prevalent contract loopholes/ etc. And they claim this isn't enough. We will very much need to hold our ground on Vacation Low!

 

[Freebrd]

just thinking we could negotiate Vac Low for the other improvements such as higher credits, rigs, productive pairings etc

 

[Redan]

just thinking we could negotiate Vac Low for the other improvements such as higher credits, rigs, productive pairings etc

Agreed, that could be huge negotiating capital. But, like many, I am getting a little burnt out with the take take take and no give from our company (with the assistance of our elected reps). Vacay Low is one of the few items we've actually come out on the good side with lately. Just don't feel we have any reason at all to give on much of anything. The JCBA will be the only means to correct the numerous issues confronting us and we really do need to get it right. We will not have another chance for a long long time.

 

[Freebrd]

fair enough

 

[BOX OFFICE]

I really don't know anything about ASA's PBS or what "vacation low" is, but I do know that negotiating in public by telling everyone what you value and what you'll give up is very, very stupid!

 

[Redan]

I really don't know anything about ASA's PBS or what "vacation low" is, but I do know that negotiating in public by telling everyone what you value and what you'll give up is very, very stupid!

This is a long long way from negotiating in public. These forums provide an
excellent opportunity for individuals to discuss, compare and compose perspectives on what they feel should be negotiated. Anonymous forums exist for basically this purpose for every career, group, profession association etc imaginable.

 

[Freebrd]

back in the kitchen woman! jk

 

[Nevets]

So when no one can agree on what bidding system we have and we finally go to an arbitrator. The company says "We want PBS" and the union says "We don't want PBS". Who wins?
Well the arbitrator is going to look at the industry to find the industry standard. That is going to be PBS. So what do you think they'll decide on?
Who doesn't have PBS? XJT, Eagle, and Comair maybe?
Now if we focused our energies on improving control over pairing construction and rules that surround our PBS we may not have to go to an arbitrator.

Good thing the transition and process agreement doesn't allow for arbitration at any point during negotiations then!