23M7 Not being documented
01-17-2024, 07:46 AM
#11
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,555
Originally Posted by TED74
Except you have to remember some significant percentage of Delta pilots didn’t want batch limitations. Without data, I have no idea what percentage…but there was plenty of vocal distain for the speed of the coverage process under the old batch limitations. Those folks would say unlimited batches weren’t a give whatsoever - not simply that the give was too large a quid. For what I assume are mostly commuters, the batch change enables more folks to have time to get into position for GS.
Those people can say it wasn't a give, but it most certainly was, how much of a give is what's in question. I'm not saying we should haven't changed batch sizes, but we should have gained a bit more than what we did. Nevermind we we gave up to get batch sizes. I don't disagree that our batch sizes were too stringent, but there should have been a cap/guardrails put in place. Getting a call at 0300 for a 1700 report with a batch of 99, when I'm number 69 and it goes to #2, isn't the anwser. Are they always like that, no, but I've had a my fair share of them. Honestly, something as simple an easy to use "slider" to turn on/off GS request in ARCOS, or turn on/off auto-accept, would have been a win. One of the "gains," they're apparently not even following lol.
01-17-2024, 08:03 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2022
Posts: 653
Originally Posted by crewdawg
Those people can say it wasn't a give, but it most certainly was, how much of a give is what's in question. I'm not saying we should haven't changed batch sizes, but we should have gained a bit more than what we did. Nevermind we we gave up to get batch sizes. I don't disagree that our batch sizes were too stringent, but there should have been a cap/guardrails put in place. Getting a call at 0300 for a 1700 report with a batch of 99, when I'm number 69 and it goes to #2, isn't the anwser. Are they always like that, no, but I've had a my fair share of them. Honestly, something as simple an easy to use "slider" to turn on/off GS request in ARCOS, or turn on/off auto-accept, would have been a win. One of the "gains," they're apparently not even following lol.
The leverage there was massive, and was worth far more than a slider switch.
01-17-2024, 08:05 AM
#13
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,555
Originally Posted by ancman
The old system was costing the company millions. It was also a driving force behind many of the staffing-related IROPs that we saw from 2021-early 2023. ALPA could have set the price tag nice and high (i.e. PS commuting + equivalent benefit for in-base pilots, UA deadhead language, further limits on GFB calls), all while sitting back and waiting for DBMS API access to begin. At that point, automated enforcement would have enabled near-100% enforcement of 23M7 violations, raising the company’s costs even more.
The leverage there was massive, and was worth far more than a slider switch.
The leverage there was massive, and was worth far more than a slider switch.
Lol, ya I'm not saying that I would have been completely happy with a slider, just that it would have been more of a win that we gained. Agree with all you're saying.
01-17-2024, 08:25 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2023
Posts: 1,232
Originally Posted by ancman
The old system was costing the company millions. It was also a driving force behind many of the staffing-related IROPs that we saw from 2021-early 2023. ALPA could have set the price tag nice and high (i.e. PS commuting + equivalent benefit for in-base pilots, UA deadhead language, further limits on GFB calls), all while sitting back and waiting for DBMS API access to begin. At that point, automated enforcement would have enabled near-100% enforcement of 23M7 violations, raising the company’s costs even more.
The leverage there was massive, and was worth far more than a slider switch.
The leverage there was massive, and was worth far more than a slider switch.
01-17-2024, 08:26 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,909
Originally Posted by ancman
The leverage there was massive, and was worth far more than a slider switch.
My hunch was to trust one of the more exceptional and pro-pilot committee chairs (SK), who was directly involved in advising the MEC on these matters. On further review I guess I should just lean on APC for a more informed opinion.
01-17-2024, 08:33 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Posts: 2,987
Originally Posted by crewdawg
Those people can say it wasn't a give, but it most certainly was, how much of a give is what's in question. I'm not saying we should haven't changed batch sizes, but we should have gained a bit more than what we did. Nevermind we we gave up to get batch sizes. I don't disagree that our batch sizes were too stringent, but there should have been a cap/guardrails put in place. Getting a call at 0300 for a 1700 report with a batch of 99, when I'm number 69 and it goes to #2, isn't the anwser. Are they always like that, no, but I've had a my fair share of them. Honestly, something as simple an easy to use "slider" to turn on/off GS request in ARCOS, or turn on/off auto-accept, would have been a win. One of the "gains," they're apparently not even following lol.
01-17-2024, 08:35 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,459
Originally Posted by m3113n1a1
I mean just put auto accept, right? Then it won't call you until you definitely get it. Then you can choose to acknowledge or not.
01-17-2024, 08:37 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2022
Posts: 653
Originally Posted by TED74
I guess I’ll just have to trust your assessment of our leverage. I’m not a negotiator, I don’t work every day on the scheduling committee, I don’t know anything about the data we did and didn’t have, I don’t know how many pilots were or weren’t slipping through the cracks, I don’t know all the ways the company was exploiting the existing weak language, and I wasn’t receiving input from constituents so I have no idea what the demands of Delta pilots were on their reps.
My hunch was to trust one of the more exceptional and pro-pilot committee chairs (SK), who was directly involved in advising the MEC on these matters. On further review I guess I should just lean on APC for a more informed opinion.
My hunch was to trust one of the more exceptional and pro-pilot committee chairs (SK), who was directly involved in advising the MEC on these matters. On further review I guess I should just lean on APC for a more informed opinion.
I’m a strong supporter of our union. However, they can and do make mistakes. This particular one was egregious.
01-17-2024, 08:49 AM
#19
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,555
Originally Posted by m3113n1a1
I mean just put auto accept, right? Then it won't call you until you definitely get it. Then you can choose to acknowledge or not.
That's certainly a work around, but it's not something I always want. One issue being the ranking of trips for a callout with a multiple GS. During the day, it's nice to be able to look at the trips, rank them and having the seperate accept/ack calls helps for the times I'm checking with the boss. Switching them back and forth in iCrew is a PITA, which is why I mentioned the slider idea. Heck even as something like auto-accept for callouts during X time periods, would have been better than we we got.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
