From a revenue customer perspective, once the new Medallion Program rules kick in and put more of the previous "elite" travelers behind the economy comfort seats of the 737, I think you will see a large uptick in consumer dissatisfaction in the DL (and likely UA too...since they did the same restructure plan with Mileage Plus) coach layouts.

The upside will be more seats for non-revs and commuters when that population abandons legacy carriers for lost-cost "shiny object" advertising tactics

 

Personally, I don't think the company has much choice other than complying with the Part 117 rules. If the rule states that a pilot must have a 10 hour period of uninterrupted rest prior to a trip/short call, thereby requiring pilot acknowledgement/acceptance, then I'm not sure the company has any choice other than compliance.

I actually don't blame the company in the slightest for unilaterally restructuring the terms of our PWA to comply with FAR 117, however I'm extremely curious to see DALPA's response. We've been hearing for years now how DALPA was looking closely at FAR 117 and how it would affect the pilot group, so then why are we being blindsided by this less than a few weeks before the rule comes into effect?

Sailing was the first to respond to SD's email, and while I may not always agree with his perspective from time to time, he certainly seems to have his pulse on some of our contractual upgivings and obligations. I'm still in surprise as to how with the length of time and amount of information our union has had with FAR 117 that the company still could get the jump on so many of us with a major QOL concession.

I live in base and rarely have any issues acknowledging and being in position for a rotation/short call, but I can certainly see how this would become extremely detrimental for commuters.

The way I see it, the company is already begining to gather up its negotiationing capital for C2015. The talking point for years has been what are you willing to give, in order to get. FAR 117 will be laundered in as requiring section 23 alterations/improvements thereby reducing our leverage towards compensation, scope, or any other sought out improvements.

I'm not trying to sound pessimistic here, just one pilot's opinion. I'd expect an LOA/MOU out from the union in a few days echoing the union's lack of options with no other choice beyond mandatory compliance with the federal rule. I don't think DALPA has many options here, and I'm doubtful any other contractual improvements can be made outside of C2015 negotiations.
Hope I'm wrong on this, our management team is way to smart to not utilize every ounce of leverage they can hoarding it until the time comes.

 

As was stated earlier in this thread…I, too, have read S.D.'s letter. Multiple times. The logic seems to take a few twists and turns, and at the end, I'm still not real sure what he said. One thought seems to come through pretty clear. The company '...is going to do what we have to do in order to cover this new FAR…' Only problem is, this FAR is not new. Our industry has known for a couple of years that this was in the pike, and now, 3 weeks before implementation, there is a problem with our PWA? A somewhat crude analogy comes to mind. "Stop ****ing down my back while trying to convince me it's raining." It'll be interesting to see how our union handles this. Hoping for a "win" for our team this time.

 

I agree! It seems to me that we have a TON of leverage. We just follow the contract as written. If our PWA conflicts with FAR 117, that's their problem not mine. Our union should be asking them what they are willing to give up for that. A330 rest facility might be a nice starting point.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.
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.

 

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