Originally Posted by brakechatter

In disagree that this a no/low cost item for starters.

I would also submit that you checked the box that asked if you were willing to relocate when you applied.

The problem with you is that you don't care if someone had to walk to school both ways in 8 foot snowdrifts. MY point was that I have been in your shoes, I made it work without a commuting policy, and we have made enough dispensation for commuters in our contract, IMO.

Seeing the world through "their" eyes only has burned the Delta pilots more than once. Some people never learn I guess.

As for say in the matter, I have as much as you. You instruct your reps and I will instruct mine. Expressing my sorrow was indicative that I understood your plight and felt your pain, yet arrive at a different conclusion.

I no longer carry that sympathy for you. Perhaps we may get something for getting RID of the commuter clause. Maybe that needs some costing/negotiating/changing. You would do better to keep silent on the issue, for you do not help your cause with the sleeper cells on here. Somehow I think you won't heed that advice.

So did you check the willing to relocate box?

Originally Posted by scambo1

I was a little concerned that my tone would be misconstrued.

However, you went into attack mode.

Do you think I am not a mainstream adult or somehow irresponsible with what I say here?

Your response to me initially gave no indication of the reason why you were against (what I consider) a low/ no cost possible improvement. Our commuter policy btw isn't even as good as Compass'.

I did relocate for Delta 3 separate times and am not asking for any sympathy from you or anyone else. I have never missed a trip for inability to commute. That doesn't mean I think our policy is a masterwork of efficiency.

Anyway, go grump at someone else and put me on ignore. I'm pretty sure I'd find a way not to enjoy your company on a layover.

Originally Posted by brakechatter

Yawn, poor you. You went on the offensive, and you got your response in kind. Deal with it, live with it, and move on. Ignore list? Grow up.

Originally Posted by Purple Drank

I see chatter's point. When ALPA starts negotiating for one demographic (commuters) at the expense of another (non-commuters), it gets ugly in a hurry.

Originally Posted by scambo1

So which is more expensive not moving airplanes or not having a good commuter solution that works for everyone.

Originally Posted by APCLurker

Pick any part of the contract that has been negotiated and someone out there can claim it was done at the "expense" of others.....

Originally Posted by brakechatter

For crying out loud. How long have you guys been in the airline business?!?

No matter, we are here to help...
we have a rotation construction committee, who I would imagine is responsible for the continued 5 days trips set up primarily for commuters. We have hotels for qualification training even for ATL based commuters, we have hotels for ATL recurrent, Atlanta residents get a day less pay for recurrent because they are not afforded the day of commuting in either side. We have a commuting policy which is generous, IMO, especially in light that Delta postures to afford the same opportunities for non-contract personnel as contract. Indeed we even negotiated the flight attendant Jumpseat for use by the pilots, and we can't even get some them to use it in order to help OTHER commuters. Front and back end deviation with a proffer of a hotel on both sides, just in case you can't deviate, positive space transportation to your residence instead of back to your base. No matter....
My opinion.

Originally Posted by APCLurker

Isn't that what happens during the entirety of contract negotiations? The entire contract has parts that are negotiated and might somewhat benefit one particular group (demographic as you say) over another, and that can be construed as having taken from one pot of money to put in another.

Improving lineholder workrules vs reserve (and vice versa), increase hourly pay vs retirement (401k) pay, improve scope vs using that neg. capitol for something else, etc. etc. etc. Pick any part of the contract that has been negotiated and someone out there can claim it was done at the "expense" of others.....

Originally Posted by Purple Drank

When the company's making billions...we shouldn't have to pick and choose who gets the fresh cheese.

Everyone needs to make more money with more time off. Not one or the other (or neither).