Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
12-08-2013, 05:44 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by sailingfun
There are a couple of points that need to be clarified here. DALPA was not caught off guard by 117. They approached the company last March to begin discussions on FAR 117. The company stated at that time that we would want to much for any changes and they planned to operate under the current contract. The company felt that previous LOA's had not been cost effective for the company. Several provisions that tied into furloughs cost the company a enormous amount of money after the 09 economic downturn and the LOA that modified recovery flying has turned out to be far more expensive then they thought. I know the forum has a different opinion of the cost benefits of various LOA's. but the company and DALPA usually agree on costing data. I am not sure where the forum gets its costing data.
The company at the time appears to have been expecting a favorable outcome on the actual interpretation of some aspects of FAR117. ALPA was able to prevail in DC on most of those interpretations. The final clarification was not what ATA was seeking. Once the rule was clarified the company came back to DALPA and requested negotiations on FAR117 after snubbing us the first time. Those negotiation are now ongoing however personally I believe we should withdraw from those discussions until SD retracts his letter from 6 Dec.
The company at the time appears to have been expecting a favorable outcome on the actual interpretation of some aspects of FAR117. ALPA was able to prevail in DC on most of those interpretations. The final clarification was not what ATA was seeking. Once the rule was clarified the company came back to DALPA and requested negotiations on FAR117 after snubbing us the first time. Those negotiation are now ongoing however personally I believe we should withdraw from those discussions until SD retracts his letter from 6 Dec.
Not to distract from the topic at hand, but I believe this could be a defining moment from our union one way or another. If DALPA comes down on the wrong side of this debate they risk alienating many of the pilots, however if DALPA comes off strong and decisive many of us would rally together. I'm all for constructive engagement, but the company has taken it to far with SD's memo. I wouldn't want to be a crew scheduler in the upcoming months. While I will not go out of my way to acknowledge a trip under are 3 hour prior to show contractual obligation, I will certainly not go out of my way to comply with flight ops self-imposed contractual alterations. I think the fact that a flight ops memo was issued before anything from DALPA is telling that the union is pushing back.
12-08-2013, 05:50 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Originally Posted by DeadHead
I use the term blindsided loosely At the either expense we were not prepared for the company's defiant, thumb-nosed response.
Not to distract from the topic at hand, but I believe this could be a defining moment from our union one way or another. If DALPA comes down on the wrong side of this debate they risk alienating many of the pilots, however if DALPA comes off strong and decisive many of us would rally together. I'm all for constructive engagement, but the company has taken it to far with SD's memo. I wouldn't want to be a crew scheduler in the upcoming months. While I will not go out of my way to acknowledge a trip under are 3 hour prior to show contractual obligation, I will certainly not go out of my way to comply with flight ops self-imposed contractual alterations. I think the fact that a flight ops memo was issued before anything from DALPA is telling that the union is pushing back.
Not to distract from the topic at hand, but I believe this could be a defining moment from our union one way or another. If DALPA comes down on the wrong side of this debate they risk alienating many of the pilots, however if DALPA comes off strong and decisive many of us would rally together. I'm all for constructive engagement, but the company has taken it to far with SD's memo. I wouldn't want to be a crew scheduler in the upcoming months. While I will not go out of my way to acknowledge a trip under are 3 hour prior to show contractual obligation, I will certainly not go out of my way to comply with flight ops self-imposed contractual alterations. I think the fact that a flight ops memo was issued before anything from DALPA is telling that the union is pushing back.
Of course, I'm not advocating for that, I'm just making an observation given the required rest and trip coverage time frames.
12-08-2013, 05:50 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,275
Originally Posted by Free Bird
So the consensus is that the company knew they had a problem and purposely waited till the last minute to grab yet another concession from the pilot group? If I'm comprehending this properly, we're essentially talking about getting rid of long call?
Imo the company is too smart to have not seen this coming. This is just another opportunity for the company to lower their cost at our expense.
If ALPA gives this one away it will be one more step towards the door for them. They just can't seemingly help themselves when comes to giving the company what they want. Hope I'm wrong, but I'll be shocked if ALPA doesn't cave on this.
Imo the company is too smart to have not seen this coming. This is just another opportunity for the company to lower their cost at our expense.
If ALPA gives this one away it will be one more step towards the door for them. They just can't seemingly help themselves when comes to giving the company what they want. Hope I'm wrong, but I'll be shocked if ALPA doesn't cave on this.
As far as the company waiting to long to enter discussions I posted why that occurred. The company expected a different interpretation on many aspects of the reserve section then was finally put out by the FAA.
There are advantages to both sides in reaching a agreement on how to cover reserve assignments. We can say no talks at all however the company has the ability to push back and push back hard. At a minimum I expect with no agreement every reserve will sit the max number of short calls needed or not. No reserves will ever be released early. Reserves will not be allowed to deviate. Out of position reserves will be dealt with harshly. Rotation construction will be changed to facilitate reserve assignments increasing line holder work days.
Having said the above no negotiations should take place with the company until SD withdraws his letter.
12-08-2013, 06:06 AM
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,870
Originally Posted by sailingfun
There are a couple of points that need to be clarified here. DALPA was not caught off guard by 117. They approached the company last March to begin discussions on FAR 117. The company stated at that time that we would want to much for any changes and they planned to operate under the current contract. The company felt that previous LOA's had not been cost effective for the company. Several provisions that tied into furloughs cost the company a enormous amount of money after the 09 economic downturn and the LOA that modified recovery flying has turned out to be far more expensive then they thought. I know the forum has a different opinion of the cost benefits of various LOA's. but the company and DALPA usually agree on costing data. I am not sure where the forum gets its costing data.
The company at the time appears to have been expecting a favorable outcome on the actual interpretation of some aspects of FAR117. ALPA was able to prevail in DC on most of those interpretations. The final clarification was not what ATA was seeking. Once the rule was clarified the company came back to DALPA and requested negotiations on FAR117 after snubbing us the first time. Those negotiation are now ongoing however personally I believe we should withdraw from those discussions until SD retracts his letter from 6 Dec.
The company at the time appears to have been expecting a favorable outcome on the actual interpretation of some aspects of FAR117. ALPA was able to prevail in DC on most of those interpretations. The final clarification was not what ATA was seeking. Once the rule was clarified the company came back to DALPA and requested negotiations on FAR117 after snubbing us the first time. Those negotiation are now ongoing however personally I believe we should withdraw from those discussions until SD retracts his letter from 6 Dec.
Sailing,
This seems to be a tough nut to crack. The only possible partial solution might be to return to two windows when Long call pilots check their schedules. Say pilots check their schedules at 8 am and 8 pm. If the company has flying scheduled then they acknowledge it and all is good.
If no flying is assigned at this time then the pilot would not have to acknowledge any trips until the next window. This way pilots would not be on a constant 2 hour tether and not have to acknowledge in the middle of the night. The company would be able to assign most, but not all, trips this way and perhaps rely more heavily on green-slips.
Or perhaps have more windows for checking schedules - say 4 one hour windows. Pilots could bid for what two windows they would be responsible for. Like I say it is a partial solution.
If we do go down this or a similar path we had better be getting something substantial in return.
Scoop
12-08-2013, 06:17 AM
Runs with scissors
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,728
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
I'm already trash texting 80.
Then the Ohio/Mich game came on and I had to run to catch my flight home just after it was 10-0 Mich. I was getting text score updates from my wife as I was sitting on the plane waiting to push, and it was 17-17
last I heard, as we were pushing back and I put my pone in airplane mode...When I finally got to my car, just after midnight, for my 90 minute drive home, my wife (FSU grad and AU Mom) texted me;
"SUCK IT URBAN!"
Urban's still got a lot of enemies here in central Florida! Everyone at FSU has always hated him, but now everyone at UF does too!
Last edited by Timbo; 12-08-2013 at 06:45 AM.
12-08-2013, 06:17 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 799
Originally Posted by sailingfun
I am not quite sure what you base the above statement on using the history and cost of the LOA's. I also don't understand your comment on lowering the companies cost. There is nothing involved in this process that will lower the companies pilot block hour costs. The company would like to mitigate increases in their costs but certainly they are not going to see a reduction.
12-08-2013, 06:27 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Originally Posted by Free Bird
So the consensus is that the company knew they had a problem and purposely waited till the last minute to grab yet another concession from the pilot group?
Final interpretations on FAR 117 came down in early October. During October and November ALPA had to pull down and replace at least 3 of the major communications on FAR 117 scheduling impact to Delta pilots due to new interpretation. There wasn't waiting until the last minute, there were late breaking changes. Those changes don't excuse management from compliance with the new Regs and our PWA, however. SD can't unilaterally reinterpret our contract, even if he's humble about it.
12-08-2013, 06:30 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by scambo1
I think if everyone pulled their white slips for January and instead put in for green slips with conflict, those would rule the day.
Of course, I'm not advocating for that, I'm just making an observation given the required rest and trip coverage time frames.
Of course, I'm not advocating for that, I'm just making an observation given the required rest and trip coverage time frames.
In order to guarantee, uninterrupted 10 hours of prospective rest the green slips would have to be assigned earlier.
12-08-2013, 06:35 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 799
Originally Posted by slowplay
Not picking on you here, Free, but this forum "consensus" is an example of why these forums aren't a good reflection of the facts.
Final interpretations on FAR 117 came down in early October. During October and November ALPA had to pull down and replace at least 3 of the major communications on FAR 117 scheduling impact to Delta pilots due to new interpretation. There wasn't waiting until the last minute, there were late breaking changes. Those changes don't excuse management from compliance with the new Regs and our PWA, however. SD can't unilaterally reinterpret our contract, even if he's humble about it.
Final interpretations on FAR 117 came down in early October. During October and November ALPA had to pull down and replace at least 3 of the major communications on FAR 117 scheduling impact to Delta pilots due to new interpretation. There wasn't waiting until the last minute, there were late breaking changes. Those changes don't excuse management from compliance with the new Regs and our PWA, however. SD can't unilaterally reinterpret our contract, even if he's humble about it.
Just trying to see this clearly. If ALPA sits tight on this and makes the company comply with the current contract, would it not require more reserve pilots?
12-08-2013, 06:39 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
Originally Posted by Free Bird
Just trying to see this clearly. If ALPA sits tight on this and makes the company comply with the current contract, would it not require more reserve pilots?
In my view it behooves both parties to negotiate.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
