The only thing to do is if you are fatigued, call out. The company claims to be all about the data. If data shows that a type of line construction or coverage leads to more call outs maybe they change the way they do things.

I am not suggesting calling out if you are not fatigued. We as pilots (for the most part) are forward leaning and would rather fly the trip vs call in fatigued/sick. This detracts from safety. I’ve been sitting next to someone who is nodding off/sick enough that I’m working for 2. Call it what it is.

In a recent letter on the subject of "Post month look-back", our Crew Resources Guru finally admits shorter trips are cheaper for Delta to cover . "Because of the analysis we've done we see benefit in shorter trips, but have a difficult time building them because of the confluence of how the network flies (structure of banks, time channels covered, pace of the recovery, etc.) and the rules that generate credit, efficient legs are being consumed into longer rotations to offset these challenges." So as we've suspected for ten years now 4 and 5 day trips are more EXPENSIVE for Delta to operate. Delta operates more expensive trips either because they can't "figure-out" a better way to construct the trips or some ulterior motive? So not only are the current trip selections miserable for flight crews, they are more EXPENSIVE for Delta to cover.

717. We appear to slowly be migrating to 4-day trips (over 50% of our rotations).




The company clearly hasn't read The Tyranny of Metrics. Your points are spot on in that they lean on us to be a get the "mission" done type. Great example...a while back we were babysitting a broke jet and were given a hotel room for a 5+ hours sit. Not a single call from anyone updating us on the situation.


​​​​​​​

Yes sir! Just like BS has side time and time again, shorter/more frequent AE's are better for them, yet they never execute that option.

Well not sure when the last time you were based in NYC, but since Pan-Am went out of business 29 years ago, the trips have got better and so has our performance.

Even as late as 2018, I had 3 and 4 day trips that were commutable both ends and a fairly even mix of 1 through 5 day trips, so it can and has been done.

Now commutability is 1%.

They are more expensive to cover however for all the reasons he mentions shorter trips are more expensive to operate. This is particularly true with the credit aspects of building rotations. We once complained about all the 4 day trips years ago on the 727. The company said if you can do better have at it and provide access to the computers and data. After several weeks of trying we said never mind. The specific issue as he mentions were the longer legs. You need those to keep credit low but there simply are not enough of them in most domestic categories. That is why domestic widebodies in years past had great schedules before they went the way of the dinosaurs.

This.

Not only can it be done, it has been done, and is done by OAL all the time. One of the factors that "makes it cheaper" to wreck QOL for on paper gains is granting marketing complete authority over all aspects of flt ops. They can't (and won't) be able to resist the temptation to save even small amounts of theoretical money by sending every fleet, including operationally redundant fleets, all from every operationally redundant base, in and out of every market like a shuffled deck of cards. That destroys the economies of scale within every category by slicing the pies into too many pieces and it becomes GIGO from there. Add in a fervorous desire to reduce hotel costs and a few other minor but powerful metrics and there's nothing left for an RCC to work with even if they had the power at that point.

The good news is there is some naturally occuring partial fixes on the way. The 88/90 being gone, and the 717 next (maybe) will grow existing categories while reducing some overlap. As long as we don't further dilute things too much (i.e. opening too many 220 bases too fast to save a few hotel pennies at the expense of everything else, etc) then that should help.

Its not that there shouldn't ever be new bases though; BOS can clearly support a NB base (as can MCO and a few others). JB has proven that beyond dispute. How can they do it and we can't? Because they only have 2 fleets flying out of those bases. DL can emulate that to a significant degree by picking a fleet or two and concentrating them in those O&D markets rather than trying to chase every penny to be found in hotel costs and trip productivity. That likely won't happen though because the lure of saving anything in theory is just too strong.

Really the only to fix the wrecked trips now is through PWA enhancements that provide the cost structure that forces the changes. As long as on paper trip credit and hotel costs reign supreme 1% commutability will remain the object at rest that stays at rest.

Curious how many of the 4 leg days end up causing a fatigue call. The few I’ve done somehow went off without a hitch but I’d be very very unlikely to extend into the 2 hours if I was even a little bit delayed. It’s tiring enough as is.

Can you explain that last point to me. "That is why domestic widebodies in years past had great schedules before they went the way of the dinosaurs." Why is that exactly? What did L1011's (other than carry 301 folks at .87) do that the 757/767 or Airbus narrowbody fleet can't do? My take away from the crew resources newsletter was shorter trips are cheaper to operate and cheaper to cover. Longer trips are more expensive to operate, and more expensive to cover. Hence my confusion.

The L1011 flew primarily long legs. It’s much easier to build productive trips that offer great QOL with longer legs. At the top L1011 domestic was senior to L15. The average daily minimum means that it becomes difficult to build rotations with low credit without getting some long legs onto the rotations. If we could negotiate a daily minimum it would lock in credit on short days and reduce the need for higher values on the other days. A daily minimum is however very expensive and while improving overall rotation quality and allowing shorter trips would certainly decrease commutable trips across the system. Talk to your RCC reps in your base. They often have discussions with the company on the improvements the pilots want and the company in turn shows them what various improvements cost in credit and potential operational reliability.
Everyone should also fill out every contract survey and even RCC surveys. Time after time I have heard pilots say they don’t bother with the surveys. I always answer with great, that gives my survey even more weight!

I'm still not getting it. I flew the panel on the L10 and yes the trips were GREAT. But the leg-lengths Delta used the L10 on are very similar to what the 757/767, 73N and A320 fleet can do (all have the ability to fly the same long legs). The L10 DOM flew many short legs too, (e.g. we flew from ATL to just about every Florida city). We flew north-south from BOS and LGA, EWR and JFK to most cities in FL. Hub to hub, ORD, MSY, DFW and sure some long legs. But the short legs were in the mix just like our current fleets, and there were the same complaints about the four-day trips. Unless you were a commuter nobody liked them. As far as the surveys go, the RCC guys I've flown with say the company doesn't listen to them at all. The proof of this is seen monthly when the RCC committee prints out the requested trip mix vs. what we ended up with...the percentage gap between what the RCC committee asks for and what the company builds is frequently 30 - 40% different. The company doesn't care so what's the point of even having the RCC? Simply eyewash for the pilots? For the company, building rotations with a minimum amount of credit time is ALL THAT MATTERS. Having said that, I do fill out the survey, but it's like the "dream sheet", I don't expect much to come from it. Again, the current trip mix is miserable, in Sept, in my category 63% of ALL ROTATIONS are 4 or 5 day trips! Many with back-to-back three to four-leg, minimum-turn-time, max duty days to relatively short layovers. Making it hard to find food (especially with COVID) and get decent rest. While at the same time the company refuses to offer crew meals to the flight crews (something virtually EVERY other airline offers to their flight crews). American, United, UPS, FedEx, JetBlue and others all provide their crews with crew meals. These are safety of flight issues not just QOL ones! Our brothers and sisters over at SWA are getting ready to picket over the holidays for the very issues we're discussing here. Delta needs to listen to the pilot group or the same thing will happen here.