While this is very true, there is no inherent right to small batch sizes especially for pilots who shotgun blanket GS requests when they are super selective then get salty when their phone rings. You want to be notified of anything and everything all the time? You deserve to be woken up. We should spend zero capital protecting the little perfection mentalities like that.

That said, eliminating ARCOS and going back to calling one at a time works for me.

 

Hold the phone there professor. "Automated coverage" was a line item that was specifically included in TA2, and part of that was GS became proffers. More specifically, it also didn't include any barriers, parameters or restrictions.

To summarize, while yes, the company implemented it, but we also permitted it when we accepted TA2.

 

+1 to all the above.

"Measure with a micrometer, cut with an axe" is not always a good axiom. We need to take smaller bites at the problem, vice making huge/wild changes (back to what we had before the batch size LOA - and many will recall that LOA was WIDELY demanded by the pilot group.)

If I were King, I would put more transparency into the system on all levels. Once the ARCOS Batch has started to run, the App can be made to 'unhide' the callouts above you, but the phone call only comes when/if it gets down to you. IOW, everybody can "see" the callout at the same time. That way you can follow the slips as they trickle down, particularly when there is a huge avalanche coming, well before it gets to you. Order them accordingly, and wait for your 'batch' to come - or not. People aren't interrupted/called too early, but you have a lot more time to respond. If you miss all that, the call comes and it's just like it is today.

A tweak to Batch sized is warranted. But my biggest beef with opening the aperture on batch sizes, especially to eliminating batches altogether, is getting woken up in the middle of the night for a trip I have no chance at getting. I don't mind the 0100 phone call if I have a strong chance at it, but otherwise, I shouldn't have to put my phone on silent so I can sleep only to miss a call I would have taken. But frankly, I don't want the 6-9 AROCS calls per day that I sometimes get becoming the norm, which would happen with eliminating of batch sizes.

Additionally, I would require every single use of 23.M.7 would require TWO inputs on the daily trip coverage. The first is the IA, the second is the 'senior pilot' getting paid. FULL TRANSPARENCY. NO EXCEPTIONS.

 

I totally disagree with this idea that batch size should be tied to size of your category. Just because I am in a large category I get more nuisance calls for trips I will never get than some other category? If the batch size is big enough for a small category to get a taker then it is big enough for a large category. Shouldn’t make any difference how many total pilots are in a group.

 

While I know I personally didn’t ask for GS to be a proffer, I honestly don’t know if the membership at large wanted that with all the good and bad that comes with it. Of course I’d like to be able to sell back my vacation, but I surely don’t want anyone else to have that option. I think proffered GSs are similarly good for a few individuals but bad for the group overall. That wouldn’t necessarily be true if we could enter persistent slips with all the PBS parameters available to only enter specifically what we want to fly…but the company has shown they want zero specificity and make us enter generic slips every month with the clunckiest of interfaces.

- Give me more parameters
- Let me easily toggle on/off as my social/family/alcohol schedules ebb and flow
- Let slips carry over multiple bid groups or at least allow copy/paste of all my hard work to make them representative of what I’ll accept
- Keep me logged in to icrew for more than twelve seconds

 

If there’s something everyone might agree on, it could be that if there’s one thing the newest generations of pilots know how to do it’s how to NOT answer a phone call.

 

I’ve never gotten salty or complained about calls that wake me or start family schedule adjustments…at least not the ones that could be mine. Only the head fakes that went to someone ahead of me. Larger batches will make that more common. I don’t deserve to be awakened or disturbed because Delta is addicted to revenue - proper manning be darned.

 

Lots of junk gets accepted in any ratification of a massive PWA. That doesn’t mean a majority is necessarily happy with every provision contained within it.

 

have you had success doing this on a WS?

 

Since we can control "Auto Accept" and "Auto Acknowledge" the obvious fix is to insert coverage just above 23 M. 7. that gives the trip to the most senior pilot who has waived their proffer.

A friend sent me this and I agree. Feel free to copy and send to your Reps if you are inclined to do so.

Suggested improvements to trip coverage:

1. Conditionally waive the proffer: If a close-in trip needs to be covered (in an instance where 23 M. 7. would be used) direct Crew Scheduling to skip to pilots who have selected YES to AUTO ACCEPT that trip via PCS and award the rotation in seniority order of those who want to fly. Limitations would have to be mutually agreeable and specific, say < 120 minutes to report.
2. If we want to maintain the "proffer" aspect of close-in assignments, then expand the batch size. This is a worse choice than #1 because it will disturb rest (for some reason these calls seem to always come between 2 & 4 AM) and Crew Scheduling still has the uncertainty of knowing whether the pilot awarded the trip is willing to fly.
3. Require trip coverage be initiated within a specific time limit and make this information transparent to line pilots. Line pilots have no visibility into when trip coverage is pulled, or coverage begins. This would drastically reduce non-productive calls to Crew Scheduling.

The Association may see either of these solutions as "concessionary." If necessary, give the association something to fix our mutual problem.