quick slips will likely effectively kill inverse assignments

my thought too. Now an IA costs 4X instead of 3X. And they have a step they can use to cover trips last minute easily. I can’t think of a way they get to IA unless they go through GS and QS.

This as all your opinion as well, I think you're blowing it way out of proportion (that's another opinion). While this MOU might, MIGHT, reduce hold times sometimes, I very much doubt it's going to move the needle on scheduling's actual workload (oh look, another opinion).

Unless you have a secret line to the inner workings of scheduling, everything you, I, and everyone else has posted, is conjecture and opinion. The biggest difference we have is that most people are choosing to see this as a good thing, whereas you are choosing to be unhappy.

interesting way to put it.

I'm not choosing to be unhappy anymore than people are choosing to be relieved and elated. I am choosing to explain how this was a knee jerk poor deal and describing its flaws. Yes, all this is my opinion and I'll own it. I also take issue with the process. There was no reason for my opinion to come out after the deal. There's a reason the company does these deals in the dark. 17,000+ minds are better than a few on the NC. I'm not saying the NC is bad just that all this could/should have been considered by the group before we got locked into this MOU. Not a good look for the MEC but this seems to be standard outside of section 6.

That was the goal. We didn’t have inverse assignments. We had skip the GS process, violate seniority, robocall everyone, and award trip to first person to call back. This resulted in junior pilots getting trips they shouldn’t have gotten. I laughed a couple times when I read some junior pilots complaining that a senior pilot took their IA and violated seniority.

We accepted these robo-calls years ago as precedent because back then , they actually completed the GS process before proceeding to them. The first come, first serve wasn’t a huge deal because the category already rejected trip as a GS for one reason or another.

I’ve seen this out of way more regional guys, where it was the norm, than former mil guys. And most of the OO guys I’ve talked to about it didn’t know it wasn’t a thing here.

Pretty sure they know, they just don't want to admit it to you. Just because it was OK at OO, doesn't mean it's cool here, they know they're taking trips from someone else.

So I read 25-05 was effective yesterday and yet today I was awakened by yet another IA call despite being #1 in category.
Tell me again how this eliminates IA’s?

So you didn't read it and the FAQ, then.

It effectively doesn't take effect until the programming is done (because it can't), which we definitely screwed the pooch on and gave them way too much time for.

I can agree that is wasn't super urgent problem that needed to be solved right now. It was absolutely a problem for us though, and this does mostly fix most the the problems we had, but I think it could have waited longer and would have liked to at least see a comment period for everybody.

Just did. Said it was effective immediately. Also said it would eliminate most of the IA calls. What did I miss?

I agree with you 100% that every LOA, MOU, TA, grievance settlement, or whatever other name ALPA wants to use to describe a contract amendment must be sent to all of us for MEMRAT. I’ve made that clear to my reps.

Having said that, we lucked out on this one as it’s almost entirely inconsequential. It restores seniority order to last-minute premium awards, and that’s about it. That was one of the very few remaining “us” problems with the current coverage fiasco. Everything else is a “them” problem, none of which this MOU will solve for them.

So you read this: When does this MOU take effect?

• Immediately. However, the Quick Slip and MiCrew Sick/Well provisions will take time to be programmed by Delta IT.

Thats absolutely B.S. as the almost VERY first thing ALPA tells you during Indoc is “don’t make frigain deals with CS,” and this is why, this is how you might think you’re helping, etc etc. Saying people don’t know what they’re doing is a complete and total farse.

Oh please. I’ve read more than a few posts from different users now accusing “Jr” of making side deals. As if “Sr” isn’t out there doing the exact same thing. I’ve seen many an IA go out to senior. Let’s not pretend there’s just one demographic willing to totally ignore the contract and make a deal.

There's so much useless crap thrown at you during indoc, not to mention it's just a huge life change on its own, that expecting someone to remember that one important detail is a little silly.

ALPA needs to be more proactive about getting the message across to new hires.

I've only met fewer than 100 pilots here and I can tell you that this is absolutely not true haha

I tend to take people at their word, and with all the crap that gets fed in indoc I’m not surprised something’s don’t take, and people fall back on old habits. Law of primacy and all.

Wasnt the guy making deals in SLC a known problem and also senior? They one that they put on the rotation that he called and made a deal?

Exactly. Very underreported point. This MOU enshrines some genuine handcuffs on the company heretofore not available to us.

Agree 100%.

Yep, and we have several junior pilots whining all over Facebook about senior stealing “their“ IA. And how the Company needs to follow the contract And give it to Junior. Which is incredibly ironic, given the way IA’s are actually implemented for the last decade has nothing to do with the contract at all.

Restoring seniority to the free-for-all is a win.

As is the permanent QHCP certification, and a complete lack of a verification window for at least three or four more months, and backdated to June/July. That alone is going to almost wipe out all current verification requirements. We also are going to have an audited 23M7 trail going back two full years. I don’t think the company would have agreed to that had we not had them over a barrel. I feel fairly confident we had to have copies of audio tapes of crew schedulers openly and willfully violating the contract. And when we are grieving a lack of good faith resolution to a prior grievance, that kind of thing does not play well with the system board. At all. In other words, the company got caught with their hand in the cookie jar, and we got some solid gains as a result.

It was an MSP pilot making a deal with Crew Scheduling, and was "awarded" SLC rotation 0672 on 28 June. Yes, the remarks said he called and made a deal (paraphrasing icrew verbage).

A5S

Edit: I don't remember his seniority number, but he was NOT junior.

Apart from the “re-establishing order of seniority for call-outs”

what gains do you see?

And id argue all we did was bring them into compliance for a violation they were committing.

Was there harm to us? Sure. But they were acting illegally as far as the contract was concerned

we should have brought them to a grievance for violating the contract.

Then we give them a settlement on the already settled grievance? C’mon we are just adding insult to injury

the Company is beating us over the head over and over and just providing a band-aid and a hollow apology before they start beating again next week

qhcp is not a win; this is something we already had a settlement for

and you who think CS going to magically comply with the contract now are out of your mind - what’s a SIL? It’s not a violation til an arbitrator says so, etc etc

stop being so afraid and let’s tell ALPA to grow a set and let’s fight back

Expressly prohibiting skipping pilots within a step. Requiring the identification of a harmed pilot before skipping steps. It locks them out from moving on until they identify the pilot. Additional 100% penalty for using IA free for all.

In the vast majority of cases, there were no violations. Under emergency coverage, they can pretty much do whatever they want. The example I was given, if a pilot calls out sick in Maui, they can call every qualified pilot in Maui to operate it back as long as the proper pilot was paid.

What a joke! A provision to prevent abuse of the contract will be abused. Can we grieve a grievance? Double secret grievance?
I really don’t GAS as I don’t GS, IA and hardly ever WS. It’s easy enough to block their calls when I’m home. I just find it humorous that once again it’s up to Delta IT to determine when our contract will be enforceable.

I don't know man. Call your reps and ask them

Do we know how long for them to update the sick lookback numbers?

It will be just long enough for us to get to section 6 negotiations. Then it becomes the impasse tool for the company to drag out negotiations until they have a more favorable environment while stagnating wages.

what about this mou makes that more likely or useful as an impasse tool than the pre-qs system?

I must have deleted the email. Where else can I find the actual MOU? Searched Deltanet and ALPA app to no avail.

That would have been enough

Probably because of the multiple grievances we had over them violating the grievance settlements.

In no particular oder, adding to CB's response below... The company was disputing that they were in compliance with MiCrew's sick automation requirement. Now, they not only agree it doesn't work properly (despite RG's absurd statements to the contrary), but there is a two month 'cure' where there have to be less than 10 DART reports in two consecutive months. In the meantime, there is no verification for sick OR accumulation of verification hours, backdated to July. At a bare minimum, there will be 6 full months where no sick will count toward any verification window, and I strongly suspect it will go beyond that. Regardless, we now have a permanent QHCP of any provider for GFB or future verifications, including Telehealth (which was absolutely ridiculous to begin with). There are a few minor provisions on top of that regarding pay if sick is not processed properly.

But more importantly, the company has to affirmatively identify the harmed pilot under 23.M.7 before they can skip ahead. Given how many violations were they failed to "log" these, that's a big deal, because it has to be automated AND identified first.

I see the virtual effective elimination of IA's sufficient in and of itself. They weren't even honoring the 'inverse'/involuntary language there, ignoring seniority almost entirely. And, if they DO skip to an actual IA, it's 4x pay. Honestly, the QS will get gobbled up pretty quick. Several of us had suggested creating a new step of coverage and eliminating the 2-step process for that step. With these other guardrails, I submit this will be a good change. I was initially thinking it would scale back on the WS/OOB farming, but now I'm not so sure. I'd like to see a tweak that would eliminate that, like a leveling mechanism for 23.M.7 payments.

They can't just stop an ARCOS callout anymore - which they were doing all. the. time. They can't simultaneously run multiple steps of coverage - which they were doing all. the. time.

And again. This is a settlement of a settlement. The system board does not look kindly at a party failing to comply with one settlement, let alone a settlement of a settlement. This gives this MOU extra weight. I strongly suspect we had some pretty damning evidence in the form of CS on tape violating the contract to get this agreement.

Are there tweaks that I might have liked to see? Sure. Tell your reps, and we can address it in Section 6. I guess there actually were a lot more folks who didn't want to wait for section 6. For the masses, stopping the rampant IA's is worth the MOU.

Look, I get that you don't like it. But for the vast majority of the pilot group, this is a win. You'd have to be pretty cynical to want the problem more than a solid solution.

You know that when people get wrapped up it's usually not about what they say. It's usually about something else, but their position is unpopular, so they make it about something else.

We saw that with C2019. It was always about the min balance and the "lost pillar", but that was a pretty unpopular point of view outside their demographic, so they had to make it about something else.

Overall I think it's a net positive. Allowing QHCPs for sick verification and GFB is a big improvement. Restoring seniority to the process and adding a leveling mechanism are also great. For lineholders, having the ability to pick up premium below the GS trigger is definitely a plus.

What I fear is they'll just decide to pay out 23M7 and skip GS every time to go straight to QS. So we basically gave them the ability to have unlimited batch size GS without auto-accept. Hopefully that doesn't come back to bite us, but as a whole I think it's a positive agreement for the pilot group

I don’t understand why people think they will “just skip GS” and pay triple. That adds up big time. Obviously, it’s not impossible and will happen on occasion, but to say it will somehow be the norm?

the company does not like paying 23M7. They will likely use QS for close in reports, and GS for further out reports. And that, frankly, makes sense IMO.

The company is likely to seek relief from 23M7, whether in the form of limiting auto accepts, OOBWS, window times, etc., in the next contract, and that is substantial leverage. Fixing the IA process doesn’t really change any of that leverage.

What makes you think they are suddenly going to start abiding by contract language/grievance settlements? 23m7 language already required them to pay someone. Clearly they weren't doing that all the time. The sick call grievance language already required them to do exactly what this new grievance settlement is requiring them to do. They expressly weren't following it already. But suddenly they will? Do we work for the same company?

Well good thing we only agreed to what was already due to us from a prior settlement... No new punishment for ignoring the prior settlement.