Any "Latest & Greatest about Delta?" Part 2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,821
Likes: 153
From: window seat
No one is advocating to just give that back for free. It’s a massive cost item. IMO we should harvest that cost for the benefit of the entire group. If we don’t, we will have to carry that cost on our side of the ledger for the entire pilot group so a tiny number of us can get paid for nothing on a technicality.
We shouldn’t give it away for free. We should all benefit from selling it.
Agreed. I’m 100% in favor of fully monetizing that in our favor. I could (couldn’t?) care less about the little keyboard empire “good deal” scammers who auto accept every trip in the system with no intention to ever do, then act victimized when the chaos of the moment passes them up for something they never would have done anyway.
No one is advocating to just give that back for free. It’s a massive cost item. IMO we should harvest that cost for the benefit of the entire group. If we don’t, we will have to carry that cost on our side of the ledger for the entire pilot group so a tiny number of us can get paid for nothing on a technicality.
We shouldn’t give it away for free. We should all benefit from selling it.
No one is advocating to just give that back for free. It’s a massive cost item. IMO we should harvest that cost for the benefit of the entire group. If we don’t, we will have to carry that cost on our side of the ledger for the entire pilot group so a tiny number of us can get paid for nothing on a technicality.
We shouldn’t give it away for free. We should all benefit from selling it.
Be prepared for getting lashed with a wet noodle for incorrect thinking.
Wouldn't a solution be strict time hacks to specific rungs of the coverage ladder?
Trip in open time between X and Y hours away from sign in must be assigned to the next LC res in line. That LC pilot MUST be notified AT the 18hr mark
Trip in OT between Y and no later than 3 hours from sign in must be assigned to a SC.
Trip that pops up on OT within 3 hrs from signing in MUST ran as a GS
Trip that is within less than 1 hr and meets XYZ parameters can be assigned to a pilot as a reroute.
Idk, just examples of what I means, don't take that ^ as gospel. Just saying, right now CS just runs stuff so randomly and it makes no sense to any of us. Strict time hacks would clear up a lot of confusion, offer the pilot group more transparency into how trip coverage is going (because we'd have a clear timeline of what should happen when) and we essentially could be handing the company the exact formula of how to automate the system in a way that benefits us in some manner.
I wholeheartedly disagree with the "it's their problem to fix, not mine. Figure it out". In theory, yes. In reality it's just opening the door for them to fix the problem in a way we may not like and we're gonna hear a lot of "we didn't think they'd do that"
I'm just spitballing, whatever it is, we need to be involved
Trip in open time between X and Y hours away from sign in must be assigned to the next LC res in line. That LC pilot MUST be notified AT the 18hr mark
Trip in OT between Y and no later than 3 hours from sign in must be assigned to a SC.
Trip that pops up on OT within 3 hrs from signing in MUST ran as a GS
Trip that is within less than 1 hr and meets XYZ parameters can be assigned to a pilot as a reroute.
Idk, just examples of what I means, don't take that ^ as gospel. Just saying, right now CS just runs stuff so randomly and it makes no sense to any of us. Strict time hacks would clear up a lot of confusion, offer the pilot group more transparency into how trip coverage is going (because we'd have a clear timeline of what should happen when) and we essentially could be handing the company the exact formula of how to automate the system in a way that benefits us in some manner.
I wholeheartedly disagree with the "it's their problem to fix, not mine. Figure it out". In theory, yes. In reality it's just opening the door for them to fix the problem in a way we may not like and we're gonna hear a lot of "we didn't think they'd do that"

I'm just spitballing, whatever it is, we need to be involved
So many of us just want GSs to be handled like they were. If you got a call it was yours. Auto-accept does that. I do a blanket green slip and always have. The company wanted automation and the deal included auto accept. Let's all just take a step back and see what the company's proposal is to fix their problem. None of this would be an issue if they had adequate automation designed around their needs instead of Icrew and an emergency lineman call out app. (yes, literally electric and phone lines down due to a natural disaster and a rotating call out app ARCOS was used to keep from pulling the same linemen regularly) The combination of an old scheduling system and a band aided app and call system from NOT the airline industry are not working harmoniously together. How is this an issue for ALPA at all? Deal makers have been around as long as I've been here an probably longer. That is an internal pro stans issue and will never go away. SS are an issue because they were not well thought out and diminish GS value for RES and GS opportunity for all (RES and REG) If there is no auto accept people will find a way to screen their GSs and the system will not improve... unless and until the COMPANY invests in a fix that is acceptable and compliant.
Last edited by notEnuf; 10-18-2025 at 02:12 PM.
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,376
Likes: 120
Focusing on the penalty is acknowledging and normalizing the presently broken trip coverage process. This is what ALPA needs to figure out with the company.
FIxing 23M7 is NOT THE ANSWER. Fixing the trip coverage process is. Trip coverage worked fine for 97 years of our history. We need to focus on how to get back to that, not fixing the process that allows the company to completely disregard it.
Focusing on the penalty is acknowledging and normalizing the presently broken trip coverage process. This is what ALPA needs to figure out with the company.
Focusing on the penalty is acknowledging and normalizing the presently broken trip coverage process. This is what ALPA needs to figure out with the company.
FIxing 23M7 is NOT THE ANSWER. Fixing the trip coverage process is. Trip coverage worked fine for 97 years of our history. We need to focus on how to get back to that, not fixing the process that allows the company to completely disregard it.
Focusing on the penalty is acknowledging and normalizing the presently broken trip coverage process. This is what ALPA needs to figure out with the company.
Focusing on the penalty is acknowledging and normalizing the presently broken trip coverage process. This is what ALPA needs to figure out with the company.
The question people should be asking is why is there so much open time. If there was just a regular amount of open time, none of the rest of the stuff matters.
On Reserve
Joined: Mar 2024
Posts: 48
Likes: 6
So we've got votes to fix 23M7, and we've got votes to fix trip coverage. But to pull the truck out, you have to back the tractor even further back into the ditch.
The question people should be asking is why is there so much open time. If there was just a regular amount of open time, none of the rest of the stuff matters.
The question people should be asking is why is there so much open time. If there was just a regular amount of open time, none of the rest of the stuff matters.
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,545
Likes: 285
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post



