That is an exaggeration, and you know it.

The company is LITERALLY working within the overly vague confines of the contract on this. How is that an exaggeration?

That is incorrect.

Is it? Then please tell me exactly what DALPA is doing for the pilots being denied sick leave and being put on Administrative Leave besides telling them over the phone to just go back to the Doctor?



Who gives the CP the list? ALPA, or an over zealous manager on the 4th floor? Why should a CP's complaint about stupid things they are forced to do be a concern of ours?

Because DALPA insisted that this wouldn't be a problem, and that so few pilots would ever even be affected. Now it seems, that isn't the case at all. Big surprise.



Are you suggesting that each pilot has no say or accountability in their sick calls? Really? ALPA doesn't issue our Medicals. The FAA does. If you don't meet the medical requirements, call in sick. If Delta won't pay you for it, contact ALPA. Unless you are suggesting that no employee has ever called in sick when they weren't actually sick, then perhaps this would be a good time to acknowledge that employers have the right to verify some sick call occurrences - at this airline, and at others.


"Some employers"... sure. How about...McDonalds. You sound like you fully support going after the pilots who call in sick, just to make sure you catch the few who, in your opinion aren't sick. People with your sort of opinion are the problem, not the guys calling in sick. We are airline pilots. Need I remind you of what you are signing on the flight release? How about we pay our pilots sick time and if they don't use it, pay it out. Problem solved. Giving the company a contract section wide enough to drive a truckload of Benadryl through is not the answer.


Can you post which FAR guarantees our pay when we call in sick? If Delta is making you fly after you tell them you are sick, that might be a good time to call the FAA. But if you believe you should be calling the FAA because Delta is making you verify a sick call, or because Delta is not paying you for sick time, you might not fully understand the FAA's role in this.

The FAA prohibits airlines from coercing pilots to fly sick. Threatening administrative leave, docking pay, and engaging in paper chases with doctors and administrators sounds an awfully lot like just that. If I were one of those guys, I'd make sure the FAA had my name on file just in case that I decided one day that my sore throat and stuffy nose wasn't bad enough to justify the harassment I'd be given for calling in sick, in the event something happened on the line.

edited........................

So you're assuming that SD can just erase Section 23.S.6.b. ??

6. A long call pilot who is assigned a rotation or converted to short call:

a. prior to release from a rotation, must acknowledge such assignment or conversion prior to release.

b. via telephone contact or electronic placement on his schedule on his last non-fly day (other than a vacation day) before an on-call day, must acknowledge such assignment or conversion no later than:

1) three hours before the scheduled report of the rotation, or

2) one hour before the scheduled start of the short call period.

I agree with APCLurker.

Why do you think one section is enforceable and the other is not?

That 9 hours without obligation is the heart and soul of our contractual "long call". Without it you can never silence your phone for a good night's sleep or take a flight that is longer than 2 hours or go anywhere outside of cell coverage, you can't see a movie longer than 2 hours. etc. etc. etc.

Dickson's letter just put every long call reserve on "contact short call".

His letter also relies on the PWA "Long Notice Ladder" provisions and says he's being forced to do this because it requires "any awarded/assigned rotation that is scheduled to report 12 or more hours after first attempt to contact to be assigned to an available long call reserve pilot before the rotation can be assigned to a short call pilot or any other pilot lower on the Section 23 N. “long notice ladder.”

He likes the long notice ladder and seems to think he has to follow it to the letter but what he doesn't mention is that the short notice ladder has just been completely blown away by his new memo. Sections 23.O. 2, 3,4,6,12,13,14,16,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25 and 26 are no longer legal according to Dickson. There can never be another short notice white slip or green slip or yellow slip. That little jewel is going to require significantly more short call reserves all by itself. He's picking and choosing the parts of our PWA that are to management's advantage and just saying that the ones that work for pilots no longer exist.

I think we all see the dilemma here. Since FAR 117 several provisions of our contract no longer make sense or are in conflict with each other. It must (and will) be re-written. It is either going to be done through negotiations or by the system board or an arbitrator in a grievance procedure.
Steve Dickson can't do it in a memo. (unless ALPA let's him. We haven't heard from them yet :confused:)

is anyone else having trouble logging onto iCrew?

Yep. You don't have to wait until 3 hours prior (I never have), but you can if so inclined/can't do otherwise per our current contract.



This is where we'll have to agree to disagree. There are two clauses in our contract which will soon be contradictory. Why do we have to give ours up? They could meet "our" clause of 3 hour to show acknowledgment and 117 by changing the way they do business or agreeing to changing "their" portion of the 12 hour able to report clause. They don't want to in order to keep costs down.

So again I ask, are we going to fight for our 3 hour acknowledgment or something that is mutually agreeable, or are we going to roll over and give it up. I don't agree right now that our 3 hour prior acknowledgement just vanishes due to 117. Perhaps their 12 hour able to report could vanish instead? It can be made to work at greater expense. Again reference the case law.

Your example of:

could also be looked at as working against them as well. Substitute the statement in your example with: "Pt 117 takes care of/extends the able-to-report within 12 hours for us because we have the don't-have-to-acknowledge-until-3 hours-prior clause." You seem to be looking at it from a one-way street perspective. It seems to me that it can work both ways. And I hope that we are fighting for that other way, or at minimum, a melding satisfactory to us.


Then again I could be talking out of where the sun don't shine, but hopefully not.

Yep. Especially the last paragraph.

...crickets from DALPA...

(except for the "expectation managers" peddling their wares here)

I noticed the 73 has some trips from the west coast to JFK with an additional leg that puts us over 8 hours. As I understand the new rules, if you push on the second leg at JFK, get stuck on the ramp and your flight time would put you over 9 hours you become a pumpkin. Is this the correct interpretation?

I think that's right. That's the way I understood it.