|
The Alarming Amount of Duty Periods >10 hours
Was kind of shocked to see the Union's pairing analysis for May that shows a surprising amount of duty periods over 10 hours....... around ~60% of them. I never realized it was that high, no wonder I feel exhausted after every sequence.
What can we do to fix this? I know other airlines have increased compensation for pilots who work more then 10 hours in a duty period. But there seems to be a large contingent of our pilots, mostly from more senior folks, that say if we implement this at AA it will just make things worse. So what else can be done? |
Originally Posted by AAdvocate
(Post 4021112)
Was kind of shocked to see the Union's pairing analysis for May that shows surprising amount of duty periods over 10 hours....... around ~60% of them. I never realized it was that high. No wonder I feel exhausted after every sequence.
What can we do to fix this? I know other airlines have increased compensation for pilots who work more then 10 hours in a duty period. But there seems to be a large contingent of our pilots that says if we implement this at AA it will just make things worse, mostly from more senior folks. So what else can be done? |
Originally Posted by AAdvocate
(Post 4021112)
I know other airlines have increased compensation for pilots who work more than 10 hours in a duty period. But there seems to be a large contingent of our pilots, mostly from more senior folks, that say if we implement this at AA it will just make things worse.
|
Originally Posted by CRJphlyer
(Post 4021125)
Wait… How would getting paid to be on duty longer than 10 hours make the schedules worse? If anything it would incentivize the company to make them better so as not to cost as much…
The people FOR this provision say that the schedules can only get better. The people against it say you just don’t know what the optimizer will do. Or, that the optimizer will have less 1-3 day trips and more 4-5 day trips. Or that you’ll end up working more average daily credit trips. The 18 hour 3 days will be gone and you’ll get more 21 hour 4 days. We own some good trip mix language that secures a % of each pairing length, but supposedly the company would want to adjust those if we get the >10 hour duty 1:1 pay. For everyone who says wow this 13 hour duty day would pay X much now!! Well, the trip would probably not exist that way with the 1:1 >10 hours. Anyway, that doesn’t account for maintenance or weather delays. You could almost bank on flying lower time and getting paid the same. |
Originally Posted by AAdvocate
(Post 4021112)
Was kind of shocked to see the Union's pairing analysis for May that shows a surprising amount of duty periods over 10 hours....... around ~60% of them. I never realized it was that high, no wonder I feel exhausted after every sequence.
What can we do to fix this? I know other airlines have increased compensation for pilots who work more then 10 hours in a duty period. But there seems to be a large contingent of our pilots, mostly from more senior folks, that say if we implement this at AA it will just make things worse. So what else can be done? Unscheduled sits pay (current book), no scheduled sits over 2 hours (solution). |
When we added long duty day (<10 hours) and long sit (>2 hours) add pay at United, both long duty and long sits both became rather rare within a few bid periods.
|
Originally Posted by Setspeed;[url=tel:4021130
4021130]Ah this conversation again.
The people FOR this provision say that the schedules can only get better. The people against it say you just don’t know what the optimizer will do. Or, that the optimizer will have less 1-3 day trips and more 4-5 day trips. Or that you’ll end up working more average daily credit trips. The 18 hour 3 days will be gone and you’ll get more 21 hour 4 days. We own some good trip mix language that secures a % of each pairing length, but supposedly the company would want to adjust those if we get the >10 hour duty 1:1 pay. For everyone who says wow this 13 hour duty day would pay X much now!! Well, the trip would probably not exist that way with the 1:1 >10 hours. Anyway, that doesn’t account for maintenance or weather delays. You could almost bank on flying lower time and getting paid the same. |
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 4021217)
When we added long duty day (<10 hours) and long sit (>2 hours) add pay at United, both long duty and long sits both became rather rare within a few bid periods.
|
I think it should be 100% for sits over 1.5 hrs scheduled and 50% for unscheduled
|
Originally Posted by Setspeed
(Post 4021130)
Ah this conversation again.
The people FOR this provision say that the schedules can only get better. The people against it say you just don’t know what the optimizer will do. Or, that the optimizer will have less 1-3 day trips and more 4-5 day trips. Or that you’ll end up working more average daily credit trips. The 18 hour 3 days will be gone and you’ll get more 21 hour 4 days. We own some good trip mix language that secures a % of each pairing length, but supposedly the company would want to adjust those if we get the >10 hour duty 1:1 pay. For everyone who says wow this 13 hour duty day would pay X much now!! Well, the trip would probably not exist that way with the 1:1 >10 hours. Anyway, that doesn’t account for maintenance or weather delays. You could almost bank on flying lower time and getting paid the same. |
Originally Posted by SoFloFlyer
(Post 4021321)
Idk if the company would want to pay per diem, accommodations, transportation, and another daily min just to avoid paying 1-2 hours extra for the CAs and FOs. At UA, the company migrated to 2-3 day pairing length to maintain the integrity of the operation, not to avoid long duty days. Just a data point here is all
2-3 day trips were a result of summer weather causing operational integrity issues, not duty day or rig pay. |
Isn't it neat? It's almost like a majority of the pilot group wants APA to do something about this, but "they need more data" aka more input from management about what's best for the company.
|
Originally Posted by Werjower
(Post 4021325)
Isn't it neat? It's almost like a majority of the pilot group wants APA to do something about this, but "they need more data" aka more input from management about what's best for the company.
|
Originally Posted by CX500T
(Post 4021230)
Same at Delta.
|
Originally Posted by AAdvocate
(Post 4021383)
Our Union says it made your trips markedly worse there. Is that true?
Also I don't see the logic in how a provision designed to make trips better made them...worse? How's that supposed to work again? |
Originally Posted by ohaiyo
(Post 4021423)
Also I don't see the logic in how a provision designed to make trips better made them...worse? How's that supposed to work again?
Hell, one of our "lauded" scheduling gurus argues against percentage vacancy bidding. |
Originally Posted by 8802
(Post 4021435)
Because we have a union that teaches a masterclass in unintended consequences every time they put pen to paper. We copy off the kid getting A's and B's, but still manage a D average.
Hell, one of our "lauded" scheduling gurus argues against percentage vacancy bidding. |
Originally Posted by FlyyGuyy
(Post 4021374)
That exactly what they are looking at. If it doesn't exclusively help the top 10% or management then we won't get it
|
Originally Posted by 8802
(Post 4021435)
Because we have a union that teaches a masterclass in unintended consequences every time they put pen to paper. We copy off the kid getting A's and B's, but still manage a D average.
Hell, one of our "lauded" scheduling gurus argues against percentage vacancy bidding. Now that aggressive pick up is implemented the top line negotiating will be to get rid of it. |
Originally Posted by AAL24
(Post 4021480)
I don’t know if the top 10% get any special treatment from APA. The whole trips blocked for OE debacle on the WB has screwed the DFW 787/777 pilots for years. You could be top 1% seniority and not be able to hold the best trips during a particular month because nearly all of them are blocked for OE. Then if they decide they don’t need a trip they dump it into open time and it gets covered by a relatively junior reserve.
|
Originally Posted by AAL24
(Post 4021480)
I don’t know if the top 10% get any special treatment from APA. The whole trips blocked for OE debacle on the WB has screwed the DFW 787/777 pilots for years. You could be top 1% seniority and not be able to hold the best trips during a particular month because nearly all of them are blocked for OE. Then if they decide they don’t need a trip they dump it into open time and it gets covered by a relatively junior reserve.
|
Originally Posted by AAdvocate
(Post 4021383)
Our Union says it made your trips markedly worse there. Is that true?
|
Originally Posted by JulesWinfield
(Post 4021536)
What’s even more ridiculous is the fact that you have check airman on the widebodies who can’t even hold the seat. They’re in a seat they can’t hold and fly the best trips. Amazing scam.
|
Originally Posted by AAdvocate
(Post 4021383)
Our Union says it made your trips markedly worse there. Is that true?
My high score is 8 hours additional on a 2 day between CARVE (release between 0000 and 0159, 2 hours) SIT and EDP pay. I've had a 31 hour 2 day between soft pays and reroute. |
Originally Posted by JulesWinfield
(Post 4021536)
What’s even more ridiculous is the fact that you have check airman on the widebodies who can’t even hold the seat. They’re in a seat they can’t hold and fly the best trips. Amazing scam.
I don’t know a solution, but I feel like having a highly inexperienced check pilot cadre vs ckps who can get 10+ years on the equipment is a trade off. Plus for many WB CAs, they want to coast out their final year or two not teaching IOE or going to the sim but enjoying aperol spritz’s in Barcelona. Can’t blame them. I realize many of the WB CAs were WB FOs but how many just rode FB until their currency expired, etc? Like I said I don’t know how to fix it, but I don’t see how they could have a full cadre of CKPs from the pool of existing WB CAs. Some? Definitely. All? I’m not sure. |
Originally Posted by AllYourBaseAreB
(Post 4021546)
and they get paid to do it at NB rates….
|
Originally Posted by skruts
(Post 4021554)
The only thing I wonder is how AA would have enough check pilots for the WB when the average CA age is over 62?
I don’t know a solution, but I feel like having a highly inexperienced check pilot cadre vs ckps who can get 10+ years on the equipment is a trade off. Plus for many WB CAs, they want to coast out their final year or two not teaching IOE or going to the sim but enjoying aperol spritz’s in Barcelona. Can’t blame them. I realize many of the WB CAs were WB FOs but how many just rode FB until their currency expired, etc? Like I said I don’t know how to fix it, but I don’t see how they could have a full cadre of CKPs from the pool of existing WB CAs. Some? Definitely. All? I’m not sure. I think we're getting sidetracked here. Our operation is so inefficient, the company needs us all to be working 10+ hour days with >2 sits so we can all be "ready" or "hot" or "airport" reserves without actually putting that in the contract. Even better when your inbound plane is delayed during your 2 hour sit extending your day to now 12-14 hours for just a pittance of extra sit pay. Our on time/performance numbers are atrocious so tell me why we are doing this again? Will aggressive pick up solve some of these scheduling inefficiencies? Find out on the next episode of Dragon Ball Z. |
Originally Posted by Werjower
(Post 4021572)
Ok fine, I'll do it. I'll be a WB check pilot for NB pay. That's the AA way, undercut your peers. Put a 1 minute notification period on DOTC so you get the 150% premium, if that doesn't work, just pick it up for OG or MU.
I think we're getting sidetracked here. Our operation is so inefficient, the company needs us all to be working 10+ hour days with >2 sits so we can all be "ready" or "hot" or "airport" reserves without actually putting that in the contract. Even better when your inbound plane is delayed during your 2 hour sit extending your day to now 12-14 hours for just a pittance of extra sit pay. Our on time/performance numbers are atrocious so tell me why we are doing this again? Will aggressive pick up solve some of these scheduling inefficiencies? Find out on the next episode of Dragon Ball Z. |
Originally Posted by Werjower
(Post 4021572)
Ok fine, I'll do it. I'll be a WB check pilot for NB pay. That's the AA way, undercut your peers. Put a 1 minute notification period on DOTC so you get the 150% premium, if that doesn't work, just pick it up for OG or MU.
I think we're getting sidetracked here. Our operation is so inefficient, the company needs us all to be working 10+ hour days with >2 sits so we can all be "ready" or "hot" or "airport" reserves without actually putting that in the contract. Even better when your inbound plane is delayed during your 2 hour sit extending your day to now 12-14 hours for just a pittance of extra sit pay. Our on time/performance numbers are atrocious so tell me why we are doing this again? Will aggressive pick up solve some of these scheduling inefficiencies? Find out on the next episode of Dragon Ball Z. Also the sit time gets absorbed into reserve guarantee so since I also have cqt this month, there is no way I can break guarantee this month so that sit time I had to endure didn't actually cost the company anything and I see no financial benefit for it. |
Originally Posted by ps2sunvalley
(Post 4021623)
Wow how did you know last week my 2.5 hr sit turned into 5 hrs?
Also the sit time gets absorbed into reserve guarantee so since I also have cqt this month, there is no way I can break guarantee this month so that sit time I had to endure didn't actually cost the company anything and I see no financial benefit for it. |
Originally Posted by ps2sunvalley
(Post 4021623)
Wow how did you know last week my 2.5 hr sit turned into 5 hrs?
Also the sit time gets absorbed into reserve guarantee so since I also have cqt this month, there is no way I can break guarantee this month so that sit time I had to endure didn't actually cost the company anything and I see no financial benefit for it. Example. I have a 74 hour RES guarantee this month. I get a late release for 2 hours CARVE pay. I sit for 4 hours. 1 hour SIT pay I have a 13.5 hour duty day. 3.5 hours EDP pay. I get 80.5 hours pay for the month even though I flew one 4 day 21 hour trip. |
Originally Posted by CX500T
(Post 4021646)
Sit pay, extended duty pay, carve pay, reroute pay and short call credit pay are pay above guarantee at Delta. Ask for that.
Example. I have a 74 hour RES guarantee this month. I get a late release for 2 hours CARVE pay. I sit for 4 hours. 1 hour SIT pay I have a 13.5 hour duty day. 3.5 hours EDP pay. I get 80.5 hours pay for the month even though I flew one 4 day 21 hour trip. |
Originally Posted by CX500T
(Post 4021646)
Sit pay, extended duty pay, carve pay, reroute pay and short call credit pay are pay above guarantee at Delta. Ask for that.
Example. I have a 74 hour RES guarantee this month. I get a late release for 2 hours CARVE pay. I sit for 4 hours. 1 hour SIT pay I have a 13.5 hour duty day. 3.5 hours EDP pay. I get 80.5 hours pay for the month even though I flew one 4 day 21 hour trip. That is because you have adults in the room (aka ALPA). As was said above, the APA are masters at screwing up the most simple concept, coupled with a management that will step over $20 bills to save a dime. It’s no wonder there are worn tracks between APA headquarters and SkyView suites. |
Originally Posted by ps2sunvalley
(Post 4021623)
Wow how did you know last week my 2.5 hr sit turned into 5 hrs?
Also the sit time gets absorbed into reserve guarantee so since I also have cqt this month, there is no way I can break guarantee this month so that sit time I had to endure didn't actually cost the company anything and I see no financial benefit for it. |
Originally Posted by rockelino
(Post 4021660)
Actually - no, sit pay is above guarantee (you get it even if you don't break 73/76 hr).
|
Originally Posted by AAdvocate
(Post 4021662)
At American it is not above guarantee. It still shows up in your paycheck, but the amount of sit pay you receive is immediately subtracted from your monthly guarantee. So if you get one hour of SIT and you are on long call, your monthly guarantee changes from 73 to [72 + 1 Hour SIT].
No mention of reducing guarantee. Where is this located in the contract (ie reduction of guarantee 1:1 with sit time)? |
Originally Posted by AAdvocate
(Post 4021662)
At American it is not above guarantee. It still shows up in your paycheck, but the amount of sit pay you receive is immediately subtracted from your monthly guarantee. So if you get one hour of SIT and you are on long call, your monthly guarantee changes from 73 to [72 + 1 Hour SIT].
Lot of **** to ***** about in our contract but lets not make **** up. |
Originally Posted by anthony210
(Post 4021704)
This is incorrect. Sit Pay goes above any guarantee. If it did not in your case you should contact contract compliance and submit a direct connect. Reserve guarantee absolutely does NOT get reduced when they add SIT pay in.
Lot of **** to ***** about in our contract but lets not make **** up. The other Sit Time topic relates to whether Sit Time is paid above guarantee for a Reserve. Much of the confusion stems from Q&A 15-59 which appeared in the latest clean draft version of the 2023 CBA. This Q&A was not in the Tentative Agreement. The Q&A, as it appears, states that Sit Time will be paid above guarantee. This is incorrect. Sit Time will be absorbed into guarantee (count toward guarantee) and not paidabove guarantee unless the sequence is an OG or premium sequence or after the Reserve exceeds guarantee. This Q&A will be corrected. We apologize for any confusion and hope this additional information is helpful. you see sit time in your pay stub but the min guarantee adjustment will less by that much . |
Originally Posted by khergan
(Post 4021323)
What are you talking about? Long sits, day overs and long duty days were quite prevalent before the new UA contract and now they're all almost non-existent. 1:1 over 10 and the long sit pay quickly created a financial incentive and they almost entirely went away.
2-3 day trips were a result of summer weather causing operational integrity issues, not duty day or rig pay. I also said “At UA, the company migrated to 2-3 day pairing length to maintain the integrity of the operation, not to avoid long duty days.” Genuinely confused why you write what you wrote regarding our pairing length lol |
Originally Posted by khergan
(Post 4021323)
What are you talking about? Long sits, day overs and long duty days were quite prevalent before the new UA contract and now they're all almost non-existent. 1:1 over 10 and the long sit pay quickly created a financial incentive and they almost entirely went away.
2-3 day trips were a result of summer weather causing operational integrity issues, not duty day or rig pay. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:01 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands