Language Errata
 

48 "soak" SS language missing was ferreted out via discussion (great job BTW)

Here's a thread for the others that are out there and discussion on how to handle the vote barring language corrections. Supposedly the NC knows there are others.

Nice catch. And it happened in less than 60 days - amazing. :D

Scoop

wasn't me, viper should get the call

...but took at least how long? The next catch will push that timeline out even further.

crickets from ALPA on this so far and it sounds like they knew about it, and others

Sounds like they knew? From who?

Great catch indeed! I was actually just having this discussion with a co-pilot and we were going back and forth (he’s a no). I told him one of the reasons I went from undecided to yes was because of the 48 hr SS soak. While not perfect it’s a good limiting principle and one of the most important pieces of language in the whole TA.

And now it’s apparently not there. That’s what I get for being lazy and reading the NN and not the actual language.

Question to Viper: Did the union give you a timeline on the language fix? I’m not voting yes due to a promise on APC (not directed at you). Also does this mess up our retro? How can we have seen the language for 45 days if the language has to change?

The information I shared is all the information I know. There was no timeline, but I inferred from the message that the PWA that is signed with ink on March 1 will have the changes. These questions are best directed at a DART and/or roadshow. If anybody does find out, please share.

I’m just getting a chance to read the TA….

My marked up version; 23DD.5.a “Silver slips for beyond second day open time will be processed during each PCS run.”
Doesn’t that produce 48+ hours of “soak”? I couldn’t find definitions for same, next, 2nd day, etc. Logically, beyond 2nd day is 3 days in the future - right?

The intent as I understood is a SS rotation must be in open time for 48 hours BEFORE it can become a SS and their last opportunity to award them is the last morning PCS run after which proffers begin (beyond 2nd day cutoff). ATL rep said it’s being fixed.

The intent is to liberate people from having to watch open time every day all day without losing opportunities to fly premium pay trips that needn’t be covered immediately.

got it…thank you.

It will also help with not having to drop everything, pack your bag, leave the house last minute.

I think the definition of silver slip was left out of Sec 2. SS did make it to the acronyms part.

Anyone else notice that our “min calendar day” is not really min calendar day? It only goes toward ADG if not on hard block time. Great if they were abusing you on 3/4 days with a 30 hour but useless if you’re only at 18:30 block on a four day with a thirty hour layover.

It works exactly as a min calendar day would. It’s a minimum block credit for the day. If thats overridden by a trip rig or adg, that’s another story.

This is one of many AIP bullets that had me enthusiastic at first, only to be mildly disappointed when the sctual TA language came out.

A5S

That's actually the point of it, it's a trip construction rig to discourage such hard days around the 30 hr. A lot of these trip rigs are meant to improve schedule quality even with the optimizer.

If you are at 18:30 block on 3 days, other new rigs will most likely kick in.

That's the point. It may result in more money in your pockets. But it’s real intent is to discourage the company from building those rotations.

Nobody seems sure how this will really be implemented. Some people I've talked to say the trip soak is as any other open time trip and it is designated as premium when it is assigned as a SS. I am trying to get clarification but since the language isn't written yet, who knows? All I hear is that it will be corrected. When and what has not been answered.

FWIW, NN, SRH, and Scheduling Alerts are all legally binding, as they are vetted through the company. The language absolutely should be fixed by errata, but even if something is not caught, it is still binding.

There were people within a week of the AIP NN, myself included, who were stating this was exactly how it was supposed/intended to work, based on conversations with Reps/Negotiators. Again, the intent is to “lessen the suck”, not to pay you more. IOW, it’s a rotation construction improvement, and one of the better ones at that.

I have heard this before. And I understand the SRH, as that just repeats information in the PWA. But how does a prospective NN become "legally" binding? How would an arbitrator in court view it if we could not produce information in the contract, but could via NN? I imagine it would not be favorable for the union, as the only legally binding document per the RLA is a collective bargaining agreement. If it's not in a CBA, it wasn't agreed to, as far as the law was concerned.

Because it’s vetted through the company.

Not to mention, they sometimes go back to negotiatiors notes, not NN’s, but notes and term sheets, when filing a grievance. Which are…. Legally binding.

I think a lower hanging fruit is what the agreed to ‘soak time’ actually means. The NN is vague.

Some possibilities off the top of my head:
1). Soak time clock starts when the open time trip is flagged as SS/Premium.
2.). Soak time clock starts when company decides to designate but that designation may not be known to the pilots at time of designation.
3.) Soak time is time the trip has to hang out in open time as a WS before being designated SS/Premium.
4.) Some other parameter I haven’t yet thought of or exception note not yet written.
…(or 23M7)

I think most everyone is assuming 1 but there isn’t anything tying it down to that in the language released so far.

The language matters and this language we don’t yet have.

this was briefly talked about at the MSP roadshow today. They described soak as time SS needs to sit and be seen by everyone prior to being awarded. The goal is that everyone will have the opportunity to put in an SS for the trip.

Also at the roadshow someone asked about the incomplete language. The negotiators said SS soak is the biggest omission known. The other incorrect language are references to other sections in the language. Such as section X refers to a pilot being effected by section Y. Section Y should read section Z.

They said the notes on the SS soak were thorough and the company agrees with the notes. A language email on all of the language alterations had been sent today from ALPA to the Company, so hopefully we will see the corrected PWA soon

That is positive from the MSP roadshow. I just hope that it is seen ^as a SS^ and not just seen as an open time trip … sounds like they are circling the issue correctly and will have language before voting closes. Good news.

Here’s one…unless I’m missing it in the language, the ability to bid for your training timeline preference on an AE only applies to the 210- or 335-day windows. The language js missing for the 150-day bids (you know, the new “standard” bid that will make up most of our bids). Waiting for confirmation from my rep.

Has anyone at the road shows discussed/explained why narrowbody flying was left out of the global scope agreement? Thanks.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/4y9Lv9phVkNqbWEGgiddKr?si=MLQZHyrtQFOQ2VhfCIUU6A&u tm_source=copy-link

Also send a DART to the negotiating committee. Very helpful and responsive.

In case the link isn’t working, look for the Engage podcast on global scope. They cover it

Thanks. Working my way backwards down the Spotify list.

The Negotiators Notepad for that section shows that this is N/A for 150 day bids.

I spoke with the ALPA attorney briefly about it. He claimed they didn’t want Delta NB to cover WB block hours. I thought this was a lazy response. In my opinion it very easily could have been included in global scope as requiring 50% of NB block hours and include language that NB hours cannot meet the WB requirement.
I assume Delta will find a way to operate at the minimum required block hours. To me partner NB flying is one way for them to get there, and the % of seats allowed Delta on those flights is unacceptable.
I also think the minimum required WB block hours is too low.

Family commitments required me to leave before the scope presentation. I hope they post an online version. I really want to like this agreement, and hopefully something in the presentation convinces me to be a yes.

So let me understand...you want a sales job? I thought those were verboten? Just vote NO and be done with it. No need to agonize over it...then you can have bragging rights until you retire(if you can consider being in a vast minority bragging rights):)

My apologies I forgot to thank you for ferreting out that silver slip soak piece. That was some good due diligence on your part.

Thanks

No sales job required, and my No vote is in. Judging by the MEC 17-0 I might be the only No.
I am hoping there is a better explanation than this for the NB hidden somewhere in a presentation.

We already have NB protections built in to the existing section 1 scope. This deal expands our protections for WB flying/growth compared to what we already have. The deal was specifically done in order to protect Delta WB flying. It’s not really meant to adjust the NB flying protections that already exists.

Interesting note: according to the union voting email that came out today, if the global scope TA is voted down there “is no requirement for either party to revisit global scope negotiations”…

I saw that. I’m of the opinion that the company wants global scope badly so they can rotate flying between theaters.

I guess I missed that in the NN. Pretty disappointing that it won’t be available for the bast majority of our bids. You’d think once the programming is done, it wouldn’t be any more difficult to include all the bid periods.