|
|
Originally Posted by Herkflyr
(Post 1361077)
Contrary to many recent posts, I see most reserves are sitting at home getting paid to grow a beard. Most widebody reserves aren't getting close to half the ALV, much less to the ALV. "Yeah but wait till summer" you say. Well, hmmm..., isn't that how things always are in this industry? Summertime flying picks up and pilots fly more? Or did I miss something?
The entire ALV+15, while I admit concessionary, isn't going to be nearly as onerous as you think, due to those pesky things called FARs. There is no way a domestic pilot is going to be flying 95 hours a month except as a statistical outlier--it certainly won't be the norm. Further, the 7 short call thing only takes effect when the new FT/DT rules are in effect, which limits any short call (domestic or international) to 14 hours. The true reason for ALV+15 was the long 12-14 day trips flying to the Pacific that in the summertime frequently are worth 85+ hours. Under the old contract if a pilot sicked out of one of those, not one reserve in the entire airline would be eligible to be assigned it, even if he had 15 or more continuous on call days, because you could not be assigned a trip that would cause you to exceed the ALV. In prior eras, DAL (south) rarely had such trips, but the NWA side always did. I do not believe it is unreasonable for the company to expect a reserve with zero hours to be assigned a published trip completely over his on call days. Any reserve in a WB category whose line started out with 18 straight on call days (which is common in such categories) should be eligible for such. Apparently the thinking on this forum disagrees. As for "reserves are going to be slaughtered." I disagree. Reserves flying a bunch over summer?...yes, but isn't that what the airline industry is all about? At least now they have the calendar day average going for them, which applies to reserves and deadhead-only duty periods. While not perfect, now a two-day trip is always worth at least 9 hours to a reserve, where it might have only been worth four before! Last, despite lots of complaints here, I believe that we would have furloughed long ago except for two things: RA truly doesn't want to rock the boat with all the strategic moves he has in mind, and I think he has accepted the price of peace by having temporarily surplus pilot staffing. The contractual provision that mandates the company remove all seats over 70 from every DCI aircraft if mainline so much as furloughs one pilot. Further, this isn't subject to force majeure and is much more effective than a blanket no-furlough clause which we have all seen is about worthless. If management wants the 76 seaters so bad--and apparantly they do--then it will be costly indeed to furlough anyone from the mainline. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1361140)
Our contract provides an example in it's language:
"If the Company’s EASK capacity share is out of compliance with its minimum 11 EASK allocation for the three-year measurement period ending March 31, 2014, then the Company will return its EASK capacity share to compliance with its minimum EASK allocation for the three year measurement period ending March 31, 2015." According to D-ALPA's published work; we are at a 1.4% deficit which needs to be cured by March 2014. That is the equivalent of 9 daily flights to the Euro zone daily, IF IF IF nothing changes on the AF/KLM/AZ side. But, Air France and Alitalia turned in some ugly numbers and Alitalia's growth spurt would appear to have run its course. The other way to bring this into balance is a decrease by our European partners. Just as ACL65 alluded to, an European pull down is likely with some marginal growth by Delta may bring this into balance. (thanks to the Delta MEC for publishing it's work from our most recent MEC meeting) I gotta take some ginko biloba. You posted out of that part of the contract and I read it 3 times. All I read, each time, was blah, blah,blah,blah,blah. :D That is one section (of a few) that I can't make any sense of. self disclosure: I have the same problem when I read some of the PBS gouge examples. |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1361047)
Ok, so if they push the rsv to just under ALV-2, then they can use him all the way up to ALV+15. ;)
That's good for an additional 4-day, when previously they would have been done. That is a MAJOR give... |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1361059)
according to 23.2.d: A reserve pilot will not be required to remain on call after his accumulated credit equals or exceeds his reserve guarantee.
So first, if the ALV is 75 hours or greater you get 7 SCs. Wanted to mention that. Second, the way I read that is if you have an ALV of 80 hours and you have accumulated credit equaling 79:59, you can go to ALV+15 which is 95 hours. Like 80 said, you have 4 days left and are ALV - 5 hours, you can be assigned a 20 hour trip and hit near 95 hours. Sure you were full at 80 hours but you didn't equal/exceed 80 before you got your next trip which can exceed 80 up to 95. Right? Kind of like the bucket system. At 80 points you are in bucket 1 and at 81 you are in bucket 2. So if you've got 80 points and are starting reserve you're up ahead of a pilot senior to you. Had you flown to 81 points you're in bucket 2 and that pilot senior to you is now ahead of you for any trips. Anyways, the guys who work weekends will get slaughtered. |
Originally Posted by Wasatch Phantom
(Post 1361135)
I'm going to go out on a limb and say our pal sailing isn't going to pick this opportunity to give the usual "but we have the best and brightest" (lawyers, negotiators, analysts, consultant, etc) on staff at ALPA National... because this is direct evidence of (yet another) poor job on their part.
|
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1361150)
Bar;
I gotta take some ginko biloba. You posted out of that part of the contract and I read it 3 times. All I read, each time, was blah, blah,blah,blah,blah. :D That is one section (of a few) that I can't make any sense of. self disclosure: I have the same problem when I read some of the PBS gouge examples. You are not the only one who has struggled with that language. You know me, I call ball and strikes how I see them. What ACL65 wrote is spot on. We have some of our best keeping a close eye on this. Three years was a big carve out, but it was allowed because we had airplanes down for mod lines and we picked up nearly 2% as Alitalia came into the mix. IMHO things got more out of balance than planned because of the economy and the European operators reluctance to pull capacity (and they lost a pile of money while we were profitable). Going forward we are projected to increase our flying and AF/KLM/AZ is pulling capacity out. I think most concur that the measurement window needs to be tightened. A 12 month rolling average make sense as airlines adjust their seasonal flying for different parts of the World. It will be interesting to see what George writes ... see if he's thinking along the same lines. |
Originally Posted by Columbia
(Post 1361089)
Etihad on a growth spree
Etihad buys India's Jet's London slots as deal talks continue - Yahoo! News |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1361103)
*Of note labor laws in France just recently changed and the Q1 2013 pull down by Air France is quite significant. Apparently these changes to French Labor law allow AF more flexibility in their block plan. Again, your union is watching the EASK balance.
|
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1361156)
I thought reserve guarantee was ALV-2. So in your example, wouldn't said reserve be done at 79:59 since his guarantee is 78 hours? :confused:
I thought reserve line guarantee was ALV minus two hours but no less than 72 and no more than 80*. So isn't 80 the limit if we have an ALV of 82-84 hours**? Prior to December, if the ALV had been 78 hours our reserve line guarantee would be 76 hours and thus 76 hours is when we're full. However, since December at 75:59 they could assign you a trip as long as it didn't go ALV+15*** or 78+15 hours which in this case would be 93 hours. Basically, using that example above if on the last week of the month they needed to assign a 17 hour trip under the old PWA with a 70 hour max they needed to find a pilot with no more than 53 hours. Now, same 17 hour trip on an 78 hour ALV month and go to a pilot who has no more than 76 hours. Is that right? *Section 4.C.1 **Section 2.A.25 ***Section 23.S.2.a-d |
Originally Posted by GunshipGuy
(Post 1361120)
If that were the case the TA should have had ALV+15 apply only to the categories needed. So IF DALPA said as much, the company pushed back and said NO--every category gets ALV+15. IF DALPA did not counter, well, I wouldn't be surprised. Disappointed, but not surprised. Bottom line--they got it for domestic narrowbody flying as well because they wanted it, and they plan to use it.
We already have differences in manning, short call hours and flight time/duty time differences and several other more minor differences. Yet for something like that it would have supposedly been this unprecidented sharp divide that we either couldn't keep track or...and this really gets funny...would be some dividing issue so due to fairness we had to make it the same. Not buying it. That issue was brought up because the company needed to be able to cover ULH trips with reserves, yet were given it across the board apparently far in excess of what the company claimed (admitted?) it needed. I get the ULH part. The company not being able to use a reserve with zero hours for the month for a single trip is rediculous and needed to be changed. But why the entire airline needed that change is the question, especially when everyone keeps saying its a non issue and will hardly ever, if ever, be used. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:47 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands