![]() |
|
Originally Posted by Launchpad475
(Post 1518131)
Well, I'll be the first to say that the trips have been getting worse and worse regardless of 117. It will be horrendous if 117 makes the domestic skeds worse then they are.
I bet there is an LOA in the works for us...I'm sure we'll hear about it after the fact...The wording will start with..."In our close relationship, We and Delta have worked out bla bla bla..." |
Originally Posted by GBU-24
(Post 1518145)
I bet there is an LOA in the works for us...I'm sure we'll hear about it after the fact...The wording will start with..."In our close relationship, We and Delta have worked out bla bla bla..."
I think in the aggregate they will be better--no more scheduled 9 hour layovers reduced to 8 if you have subsequent "compensatory" rest. I always thought that was insane, as the minimum Air Force layover was 15+15 (and if you only had that the enlisted guys would gripe mightily). On the other hand some of the really nice, "efficient" trips such as one leg ATL-CCS, layover for 9 hours, then fly one leg CCS-ATL, blocking 8 hours, but paying 10.5 are gone. Did you see the ATL-CCS trip (ATL 7ER) for Dec 31? It has a 33 hour layover instead of 9. So you get to spend 33 hours at the airport hotel in CCS for a three day trip that now pays 13.30. In the short term there will be a lot of crappy deals. As marketing, crew resources, and the ALPA Rotation Construction Committee work together (which you don't get with a "burn the place down" mentality) I predict that many raw deals we may see in the first few months will be smoothed out. That said, there will, in the aggregate, be schedules that result in guys being on the road a bit more, and more reroutes. The lack of "legal to start, legal to finish" is the biggest change to all these FARs, and I can't believe that the airline industry lost that battle when these new FARs were written. |
Originally Posted by FmrFreightDog
(Post 1518120)
Don't worry. They said they'll work it out over the next year or so. Stand by for another significant setback to the status quo....
A year ago my Rep (44) spent a good half an hour convincing me the FAR 117 rules were going to be, more or less, a push because of our CBA. Now I'm told to stand by for a year or so of significant loss of quality of life while ALPA figures these "new" regulations out? Representation fail..... Again.... Not starting a fight, just asking you to help me understand what or how any Pilot union could have done to mitigate 117 if the government never finalized the rules until late?? No matter what, with our group nothing is ever good enough, I get that... But what would have been acceptable?? Just askin!! |
Originally Posted by Roadkill
(Post 1517820)
Fed Ex-- I've been told we have a good benefit when shipping FedEx? I've been all over the Delta Perks page and can't find anything... can someone point me in the right direction? Thx
In Hawaii, all my family on the mainland get their presents fedexed after turkeyday, via next day air, beat the USPS for shipping prices and by about a week. They all thought I was insane shipping boxes via FEDEX next day air. LUV |
Originally Posted by bluejuice71
(Post 1518099)
Anyone read the memo posted today by the Rotation Construction Committee? Sounds like they are bracing us for crappy trips due to FAR Part 117. On top of that the company has already stated they will mitigate the effects of Part 117 with more reroutes. I thought the new rest rules were supposed to be a good deal for us??
|
Originally Posted by Herkflyr
(Post 1518186)
On the other hand some of the really nice, "efficient" trips such as one leg ATL-CCS, layover for 9 hours, then fly one leg CCS-ATL, blocking 8 hours, but paying 10.5 are gone. Did you see the ATL-CCS trip (ATL 7ER) for Dec 31? It has a 33 hour layover instead of 9. So you get to spend 33 hours at the airport hotel in CCS for a three day trip that now pays 13.30.
|
Originally Posted by contrails
(Post 1518209)
If only there were a time every couple of years, to sit down and use leverage to negotiate trip rig type of improvements.
I think also that 117 is going to flatten out international categories. Time will tell, but it is possible that Europe trips might become as "efficient" as ULH. |
Originally Posted by contrails
(Post 1518209)
If only there were a time every couple of years, to sit down and use leverage to negotiate trip rig type of improvements.
Once again, the company's playing chess... and our agent is playing checkers. |
No more 24 hr Intl SC
|
Originally Posted by bluejuice71
(Post 1518099)
Anyone read the memo posted today by the Rotation Construction Committee? Sounds like they are bracing us for crappy trips due to FAR Part 117. On top of that the company has already stated they will mitigate the effects of Part 117 with more reroutes. I thought the new rest rules were supposed to be a good deal for us??
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:37 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands