Optimizer
10-17-2019, 07:31 AM
#51
Roll’n Thunder
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Position: Pilot
Posts: 3,555
I'm just spit balling, so maybe I'm crazy, but is there a way to have both an ADG and min day? Say raise ADG to 5:45 but also have a lower min day (3 hours??) that would go on top of ADG on no-fly days? Or something like that to force, or at least encourage, the flying to be spread more evenly each day.
10-17-2019, 07:37 AM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Position: Hoping for any position
Posts: 2,504
Originally Posted by GogglesPisano
Every trip on the NYC 73 is easy-peasy. 1-2 legs/day.
Unless you transit ATL. Then you get 4 legs that day.
Unless you transit ATL. Then you get 4 legs that day.
10-17-2019, 07:44 AM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: Captain
Posts: 822
Originally Posted by Herkflyr
I understand all this stuff perfectly. I'm not as up to speed on "other" airlines as you might be, but here is the crux of this discussion.
1. The ADG is a vast improvement over what we used to have at DAL. We would all be flying at least 1-2 days a month more, with worse trips that paid far less, under rules that we used to have. In fact I would love to see the pilot reaction if the company proposed rule changes taking us back to just where we were in the early 2000s. Riots come to my mind.
2. Other airlines, whether regional or SWA, can easily accommodate a min day pay guarantee, because they have few--or even one--fleet type. Having such a fleet doesn't lend itself to 30 hour layovers. Our incredibly complex fleet, plus RJs mixed in, lends itself to 30 hour layovers, because our quite clever network guys know how to max the resources. If we only have one 717 a day to Evansville and all the rest are RJs, for example, and it is the last flight in at midnight and first flight out at 0600, guess what? 30 hour layover it is. That's not a plot to make our flying lives less than ideal (though sometimes I like the long layovers). It is network maximizing resources, revenue and eventually, lots of profit that you and I enjoy, especially every Feb 14.
3. I'm not saying the ADG is perfect. I have flown plenty of these ridiculous three leg 8+hour days, when what used to be a very nice 7+ hour one-day turn now has an ATL-TPA leg tagged on to a crappy short layover. I don't like that at all. I'm not saying we shouldn't advocate for a min pay per day provision. It may turn out to be everything we hoped and then some. However I will be curious to see how our bid packages look if we implemented them. For the most part there is no "min pay per day fairy" out there, where the trips all look the same but we get paid more. They WILL change. Whether it is for the better or not of course is the big unknown.
1. The ADG is a vast improvement over what we used to have at DAL. We would all be flying at least 1-2 days a month more, with worse trips that paid far less, under rules that we used to have. In fact I would love to see the pilot reaction if the company proposed rule changes taking us back to just where we were in the early 2000s. Riots come to my mind.
2. Other airlines, whether regional or SWA, can easily accommodate a min day pay guarantee, because they have few--or even one--fleet type. Having such a fleet doesn't lend itself to 30 hour layovers. Our incredibly complex fleet, plus RJs mixed in, lends itself to 30 hour layovers, because our quite clever network guys know how to max the resources. If we only have one 717 a day to Evansville and all the rest are RJs, for example, and it is the last flight in at midnight and first flight out at 0600, guess what? 30 hour layover it is. That's not a plot to make our flying lives less than ideal (though sometimes I like the long layovers). It is network maximizing resources, revenue and eventually, lots of profit that you and I enjoy, especially every Feb 14.
3. I'm not saying the ADG is perfect. I have flown plenty of these ridiculous three leg 8+hour days, when what used to be a very nice 7+ hour one-day turn now has an ATL-TPA leg tagged on to a crappy short layover. I don't like that at all. I'm not saying we shouldn't advocate for a min pay per day provision. It may turn out to be everything we hoped and then some. However I will be curious to see how our bid packages look if we implemented them. For the most part there is no "min pay per day fairy" out there, where the trips all look the same but we get paid more. They WILL change. Whether it is for the better or not of course is the big unknown.
And without some major contractual protections, you can bet it would reduce the amount commutable trips. It is going to build longer days to try and reduce the amount of credit vs block. SWA only has “AMs and PMs” and for the most part are only commutable on one end.
Again, I certainly am not against a min day, but just realize it will probably take a RCC with some major teeth to overcome the increase in credit balancing it would generate.
10-17-2019, 07:46 AM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,117
Originally Posted by Aviator147
So do we have to abide by both? Is one just less punitive? I guess I just fail to see why we have two policies regarding commuting as it makes it a bit more confusing....
10-17-2019, 07:52 AM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Posts: 631
Originally Posted by RonRicco
Spot on. I am in no way against a min day, but there are also a lot misconceptions of what it will and won’t do. I hear “this 4 day would be paying me 26 hours.” Well, odds are it would not because Carmen would have spit out a different solution that reduced credit and that trip would look nothing like it did.
And without some major contractual protections, you can bet it would reduce the amount commutable trips. It is going to build longer days to try and reduce the amount of credit vs block. SWA only has “AMs and PMs” and for the most part are only commutable on one end.
Again, I certainly am not against a min day, but just realize it will probably take a RCC with some major teeth to overcome the increase in credit balancing it would generate.
And without some major contractual protections, you can bet it would reduce the amount commutable trips. It is going to build longer days to try and reduce the amount of credit vs block. SWA only has “AMs and PMs” and for the most part are only commutable on one end.
Again, I certainly am not against a min day, but just realize it will probably take a RCC with some major teeth to overcome the increase in credit balancing it would generate.
10-17-2019, 07:58 AM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2019
Position: Currently freeloading
Posts: 524
Originally Posted by DALMD88FO
b. are scheduled to arrive at his base at a reasonable time before his scheduled report
I tried to use the commuter policy on a flight that arrived something like 9:30 before show and was refused, because they thought it'd put them on the hook for FAA legality.
10-17-2019, 08:02 AM
#58
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: Angry Puppy
Posts: 31
Originally Posted by saturn
Funny, I'm not seeing the 24hr 3-days nor the 32hr 4-days. Just a ton of 15:45 & 21:00 3/4-days, with 15:00/20:00 hrs of block. And that time is usually put into all but 1 day, with the ADG assuring we get min trip pay.
10-17-2019, 08:13 AM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 643
Originally Posted by FL370esq
If you have satisfied the requirements of the FOM policy, you are guaranteed positive space to work (provided your back-up will get you to your domicile in time...or to the satisfaction of the scheduler if running late). The PWA policy merely gives scheduling the option to PS you. They don't have to. As a result, you will most likely hear from the CPO if you invoke the FOM policy. You should not hear from them if you have complied with the PWA policy.
10-17-2019, 08:20 AM
#60
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,869
Lots of good thoughts on increasing our efficiency via various contractual mechanisms but we are hamstrung by our complex fleet. We, by the way should not have to pay the price for management flying numerous AC types often with similar leg length/passenger capability but this is the real world so we in fact do.
Here is the problem. I flew a 5 day with over 15 block on day one and two and then slacked on days 3-5 so I was paid 5:15 per day. The company can easily build this as a stand alone 2 day but then it would end up paying someone else 15:45 for maybe 10 block on a three day. Carmen, she no like.
So what is the answer? Probably fleet consolidation in the long term could help somewhat but perhaps a 5:30 ADG or some hybrid ADG and min day but we are talking $$$$$ here and it will be a long hard battle but one we should be willing to pursue.
If any of you big brains out there have any win-win ways to improve our QOL with minimum cost increase please chime in.
Scoop
Here is the problem. I flew a 5 day with over 15 block on day one and two and then slacked on days 3-5 so I was paid 5:15 per day. The company can easily build this as a stand alone 2 day but then it would end up paying someone else 15:45 for maybe 10 block on a three day. Carmen, she no like.
So what is the answer? Probably fleet consolidation in the long term could help somewhat but perhaps a 5:30 ADG or some hybrid ADG and min day but we are talking $$$$$ here and it will be a long hard battle but one we should be willing to pursue.
If any of you big brains out there have any win-win ways to improve our QOL with minimum cost increase please chime in.
Scoop
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
