Search

Notices

MOU 25-05

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 02-22-2026 | 03:21 PM
  #2341  
Gunfighter's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
1M Airline Miles
On Reserve
Gets Weekends Off
50 Countries Visited
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,543
Likes: 509
Default

Originally Posted by ancman
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.
A rolling overlapping notification system that advances one pilot every minute with a 12 minute window would cover 60 per hour with a max of 11 unwanted calls.

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...
Reply
Old 02-22-2026 | 03:21 PM
  #2342  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 675
Likes: 20
Default

So, do away with offer window, have a single 12 minute award window and award window batches as to disturb the least amount of pilots?



Reply
Old 02-22-2026 | 04:04 PM
  #2343  
Abouttime2fish's Avatar
Line Holder
Veteran: Marine Corp
10 Years
 
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,890
Likes: 162
From: MD88
Default

Originally Posted by Ar Pilot
So, do away with offer window, have a single 12 minute award window and award window batches as to disturb the least amount of pilots?


And you can adjust those batches based on time of day, how many trips need to be covered, how far out report is…. /s 😂🤣😂
Reply
Old 02-22-2026 | 04:50 PM
  #2344  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Oct 2021
Posts: 1,243
Likes: 345
Default

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."
Reply
Old 02-22-2026 | 04:53 PM
  #2345  
On Reserve
 
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 189
Likes: 15
From: 767
Default

Originally Posted by Verdell
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."
That is a way higher percentage than I would have thought. Further since OOBWS capture many more potential pilots, I could take forever to get through that step.
Reply
Old 02-22-2026 | 06:40 PM
  #2346  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Mar 2023
Posts: 229
Likes: 44
Default

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?
Reply
Old 02-22-2026 | 07:05 PM
  #2347  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 121
From: Big ones
Default

Originally Posted by ohaiyo
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?
I could go for something like that. Give batch sizes an honest try while still preserving some leverage in the time-to-cover realm. We basically went from zero to Infiniti on the batch size giveaway and never explored the fine-tuning possibilities that batch sizes present for both sides.

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
Reply
Old 02-22-2026 | 08:57 PM
  #2348  
Valar Morghulis's Avatar
Line Holder
 
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 475
Likes: 61
Default

Originally Posted by ohaiyo
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?
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.
Reply
Old 02-23-2026 | 04:29 AM
  #2349  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 121
From: Big ones
Default

Originally Posted by Valar Morghulis
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.
but but but THIS new computerized system will fix all our previous problems! Think of the efficiencies and all the time and money we will save!
Reply
Old 02-23-2026 | 04:51 AM
  #2350  
On Reserve
 
Joined: Feb 2023
Posts: 197
Likes: 104
Default

Originally Posted by Valar Morghulis
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.
I think the new system will work just fine and we do not need to make any changes.

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.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
cactiboss
American
355
09-21-2015 05:20 PM
Doctor
American
250
01-29-2014 12:47 PM
R57 relay
American
86
01-06-2013 09:49 AM
TonyWilliams
Cargo
257
09-09-2010 04:31 PM
fr8rcaptain
Cargo
0
05-12-2009 03:20 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices