MOU 25-05
#2341
You appear to not understand how the process works.
When scheduling runs WS/OOBWS/GS coverage, it begins with a 12-minute ARCOS offer window. During that time, everyone with auto-accept on automatically accepts the trip, and those without auto-accept on can manually accept. This initial 12-minute window has never been an issue. This is what you’re proposing to eliminate.
The true issue (for the company) is that after that step, each pilot who has accepted the trip now receives an individual 12-minute award window. If 50 pilots have auto-accept on, then the second step takes 10 hours. If 100 pilots have auto-accept on, it takes 20 hours.
In a category with 100 auto-accepts, the step you’re proposing to eliminate currently occupies 1% of the time required for coverage (12 minutes out of 1,212 minutes). The other 99% of coverage time (1,200 minutes) is spent on the second step, the award window phase. Under your proposal, that step would actually take more time, as now every pilot has auto-accept on rather than only some.
When scheduling runs WS/OOBWS/GS coverage, it begins with a 12-minute ARCOS offer window. During that time, everyone with auto-accept on automatically accepts the trip, and those without auto-accept on can manually accept. This initial 12-minute window has never been an issue. This is what you’re proposing to eliminate.
The true issue (for the company) is that after that step, each pilot who has accepted the trip now receives an individual 12-minute award window. If 50 pilots have auto-accept on, then the second step takes 10 hours. If 100 pilots have auto-accept on, it takes 20 hours.
In a category with 100 auto-accepts, the step you’re proposing to eliminate currently occupies 1% of the time required for coverage (12 minutes out of 1,212 minutes). The other 99% of coverage time (1,200 minutes) is spent on the second step, the award window phase. Under your proposal, that step would actually take more time, as now every pilot has auto-accept on rather than only some.
There is no shortage of possible solutions. The real magic is determining the price Delta pays for implementing it. I'd like it heavily weighted toward soft pay. Vacation, paid APD, etc...
#2343
#2344
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2021
Posts: 1,243
Likes: 345
Just to add some data to the debate, I took upon myself the laborious task of auditing some 23M7 logs in iCrew. It would be SOOO much simpler if these logs were in a traditional (i.e. Excel) format, but here we are. Manual data entry.
ATL320B was my choice as it's the largest category and is spread across all bases (except BOS of course.) The intent, and result of my audit was to determine just how much 23M7 (aka trip coverage being stopped/skipped) resulted in out-of-base pilots getting paid. Indirectly, but probably directly, this indicates how often OOBWS is guilty of "jamming" up coverage, other factors notwithstanding (CS being staffed properly, doing their job, etc.)
I audited all 41 pages of ATL320B 23M7 logs in iCrew for January 2026. Results:
446 23M7 entries
294 were for ATL320B (WS)
152 were for 320B in other bases (OOBWS)
So, 66% for WS, 34% for OOBWS
Or, simpler terms, 2/3 were for WS, 1/3 were for OOBWS.
Honestly this was a higher % of OOBWS than I was expecting. That being said, I'm still not convinced that OOBWS are "the problem."
ATL320B was my choice as it's the largest category and is spread across all bases (except BOS of course.) The intent, and result of my audit was to determine just how much 23M7 (aka trip coverage being stopped/skipped) resulted in out-of-base pilots getting paid. Indirectly, but probably directly, this indicates how often OOBWS is guilty of "jamming" up coverage, other factors notwithstanding (CS being staffed properly, doing their job, etc.)
I audited all 41 pages of ATL320B 23M7 logs in iCrew for January 2026. Results:
446 23M7 entries
294 were for ATL320B (WS)
152 were for 320B in other bases (OOBWS)
So, 66% for WS, 34% for OOBWS
Or, simpler terms, 2/3 were for WS, 1/3 were for OOBWS.
Honestly this was a higher % of OOBWS than I was expecting. That being said, I'm still not convinced that OOBWS are "the problem."
#2345
On Reserve
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 189
Likes: 15
From: 767
Just to add some data to the debate, I took upon myself the laborious task of auditing some 23M7 logs in iCrew. It would be SOOO much simpler if these logs were in a traditional (i.e. Excel) format, but here we are. Manual data entry.
ATL320B was my choice as it's the largest category and is spread across all bases (except BOS of course.) The intent, and result of my audit was to determine just how much 23M7 (aka trip coverage being stopped/skipped) resulted in out-of-base pilots getting paid. Indirectly, but probably directly, this indicates how often OOBWS is guilty of "jamming" up coverage, other factors notwithstanding (CS being staffed properly, doing their job, etc.)
I audited all 41 pages of ATL320B in iCrew for January 2026. Results:
446 23M7 entries
294 were for ATL320B (WS)
152 were for 320B in other bases (OOBWS)
So, 66% for WS, 34% for OOBWS
Or, simpler terms, 2/3 were for WS, 1/3 were for OOBWS.
Honestly this was a higher % of OOBWS than I was expecting. That being said, I'm still not convinced that OOBWS are "the problem."
ATL320B was my choice as it's the largest category and is spread across all bases (except BOS of course.) The intent, and result of my audit was to determine just how much 23M7 (aka trip coverage being stopped/skipped) resulted in out-of-base pilots getting paid. Indirectly, but probably directly, this indicates how often OOBWS is guilty of "jamming" up coverage, other factors notwithstanding (CS being staffed properly, doing their job, etc.)
I audited all 41 pages of ATL320B in iCrew for January 2026. Results:
446 23M7 entries
294 were for ATL320B (WS)
152 were for 320B in other bases (OOBWS)
So, 66% for WS, 34% for OOBWS
Or, simpler terms, 2/3 were for WS, 1/3 were for OOBWS.
Honestly this was a higher % of OOBWS than I was expecting. That being said, I'm still not convinced that OOBWS are "the problem."
#2346
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2023
Posts: 229
Likes: 44
How about we bring batch sizes back? If they use a reasonably sized batch size (call it 5), they have no penalty. Also, AA works for proper batch sizes. If they're desperate, they can bypass AA, and go Auto-Ack only, but every batch that exceeds that by some threshold (5 pilots) will pay X-hours per pilot in the batch. 10-pilot batch, 1-hour per pilot. 15-pilot batch, 2-hours per pilot. 20-pilot batch, 3-hours per pilot.
Thus, if you get woken up by a 2 am call with a 30-pilot batch, you'll at least be paid 5 hours.
Increasing batch sizes scales the penalty. People will get woken up, but at least you'll be paid if you're not likely to get the trip.
Would that work?
Thus, if you get woken up by a 2 am call with a 30-pilot batch, you'll at least be paid 5 hours.
Increasing batch sizes scales the penalty. People will get woken up, but at least you'll be paid if you're not likely to get the trip.
Would that work?
#2347
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 121
From: Big ones
How about we bring batch sizes back? If they use a reasonably sized batch size (call it 5), they have no penalty. Also, AA works for proper batch sizes. If they're desperate, they can bypass AA, and go Auto-Ack only, but every batch that exceeds that by some threshold (5 pilots) will pay X-hours per pilot in the batch. 10-pilot batch, 1-hour per pilot. 15-pilot batch, 2-hours per pilot. 20-pilot batch, 3-hours per pilot.
Thus, if you get woken up by a 2 am call with a 30-pilot batch, you'll at least be paid 5 hours.
Increasing batch sizes scales the penalty. People will get woken up, but at least you'll be paid if you're not likely to get the trip.
Would that work?
Thus, if you get woken up by a 2 am call with a 30-pilot batch, you'll at least be paid 5 hours.
Increasing batch sizes scales the penalty. People will get woken up, but at least you'll be paid if you're not likely to get the trip.
Would that work?
example: company declares an irop and ps commuting, id be open to selling aa and batch size up to 10 for a 24-hour window in exchange for adg during that same time. Stack that onto a gs and I might volunteer to fly during the irop
#2348
How about we bring batch sizes back? If they use a reasonably sized batch size (call it 5), they have no penalty. Also, AA works for proper batch sizes. If they're desperate, they can bypass AA, and go Auto-Ack only, but every batch that exceeds that by some threshold (5 pilots) will pay X-hours per pilot in the batch. 10-pilot batch, 1-hour per pilot. 15-pilot batch, 2-hours per pilot. 20-pilot batch, 3-hours per pilot.
Thus, if you get woken up by a 2 am call with a 30-pilot batch, you'll at least be paid 5 hours.
Increasing batch sizes scales the penalty. People will get woken up, but at least you'll be paid if you're not likely to get the trip.
Would that work?
Thus, if you get woken up by a 2 am call with a 30-pilot batch, you'll at least be paid 5 hours.
Increasing batch sizes scales the penalty. People will get woken up, but at least you'll be paid if you're not likely to get the trip.
Would that work?
This is the exact same reason the company abused batch sizes before, which led them to abusing M7 the first time. It’s the same reason they are stuck now.
They're trying to cover way too much flying compared to the way they used to.
#2349
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 121
From: Big ones
Batch sizes aren’t the problem. Any batch size we’d consider reasonable the company will violate when they need to. That will generate penalty pay, which will generate pilots piling in to collect the penalty, slowing down the system.
This is the exact same reason the company abused batch sizes before, which led them to abusing M7 the first time. It’s the same reason they are stuck now.
They're trying to cover way too much flying compared to the way they used to.
This is the exact same reason the company abused batch sizes before, which led them to abusing M7 the first time. It’s the same reason they are stuck now.
They're trying to cover way too much flying compared to the way they used to.
#2350
On Reserve
Joined: Feb 2023
Posts: 197
Likes: 104
Batch sizes aren’t the problem. Any batch size we’d consider reasonable the company will violate when they need to. That will generate penalty pay, which will generate pilots piling in to collect the penalty, slowing down the system.
This is the exact same reason the company abused batch sizes before, which led them to abusing M7 the first time. It’s the same reason they are stuck now.
They're trying to cover way too much flying compared to the way they used to.
This is the exact same reason the company abused batch sizes before, which led them to abusing M7 the first time. It’s the same reason they are stuck now.
They're trying to cover way too much flying compared to the way they used to.
Time to run coverage? Itll go out the normal way. You’ll only be woken up if it’s yours.
No time to run coverage? It’ll go out as a QS, and the company pays 3x in exchange for the inconvenience to pilots of only having a single batch.
Any changes to this will need to be requested by the company in section 6 in exchange for substantial return elsewhere, end of story.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post





