Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
12-09-2013 | 04:44 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 3
From: Lowest Pay I Could Find
There is a massive amount of reroute horsepower in the contract. Going forward I might just skip bidding, since it is not going to matter after sign in anyway.
12-09-2013 | 04:52 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,724
Likes: 0
From: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
As I read it, our 3-hour acknowledgment is dead. It's illegal. They can't assign retroactive rest for Reserves, so you need to get your assignment, and go to bed, shut the curtains nice and tight, and sing yourself a lullaby.
I think the questions are:
1) Do we really have a responsibility to be available via phone at any time? We seem to have a responsibility to be available for contact, and we seem to have the right to acknowledge electronically.
2) Who has the right to determine how contact is made under the current contract?
The bottom line is that there are some issues in the contract that are changing because they violate FAR117. Some of these penalize the company, and this one seems to penalize us. Nonetheless, there needs to be a discussion on how the transition occurs, and I think we all agree that it's not SD's prerogative to make decrees in that regard.
I think the questions are:
1) Do we really have a responsibility to be available via phone at any time? We seem to have a responsibility to be available for contact, and we seem to have the right to acknowledge electronically.
2) Who has the right to determine how contact is made under the current contract?
The bottom line is that there are some issues in the contract that are changing because they violate FAR117. Some of these penalize the company, and this one seems to penalize us. Nonetheless, there needs to be a discussion on how the transition occurs, and I think we all agree that it's not SD's prerogative to make decrees in that regard.
The 3-hour prior notification is a result of a rolling 9-hour response time to a notification from scheduling, from When Scheduling Calls:
If a long-call pilot desires to be out of contact entirely for periods of time (sleeping without interruption, golfing without a cell phone, etc.), then he must check his schedule (or messages) at least every 9 hours. This ensures that he can acknowledge no later than 3 hours prior to any rotation, 1 hour prior to start of a short call or 6 hours after the start of a rest period that might have been assigned while he was out of contact.
At times the PWA and the FARS can be more restrictive, this occurs throughout the PWA in just about any section.
If our current PWA gives us a 9-hour response time to acknowledge a call from scheduling, there is nothing in 117 that precludes that 9-hour response time.
The company is attempting to redefine the response time as 2-hour when on long-call but that is clearly contradictory to the PWA and the guidance provided in WSC.
It is inconvenient for scheduling to have to provide 19 hours notice to a long call pilot but that is the result of the restrictions in the PWA (9 hours to respond/schedule check) and the restrictions in FAR 117 (10 hours rest prior to a report).
At any rate an email memo from a Delta SVP can't change our contract.
In reality Delta holds an even larger competitive advantage vs our peers because as Mgmt has pointed out much of what is in 117 matches our current PWA whereas some of our competitive set are being forced to adjust their staffing/scheduling to comply with the new FARs.
Cheers
George
12-09-2013 | 05:03 PM
Line Holder
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,281
Likes: 0
From: C560XL/XLS/XLS+
12-09-2013 | 05:39 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Believe me, I get it. I routinely use Reserve as an alternative. I am all about QOL. I do NOT want to have Scheduling hard-wired into my skull. I'm just trying to assess our leverage realistically.
What's becoming painfully apparent is that 117 is generating a lot of unintended consequences. On the whole, it seems more negative than positive. I'm very concerned about 2-man crossings > 8 hours, and MUCH more TAFB with long layovers (Int'l and Domestic).
The number of QOL-busting issues that are currently in play is impressive, and only getting bigger. This isn't a mini-LOA issue.
What's becoming painfully apparent is that 117 is generating a lot of unintended consequences. On the whole, it seems more negative than positive. I'm very concerned about 2-man crossings > 8 hours, and MUCH more TAFB with long layovers (Int'l and Domestic).
The number of QOL-busting issues that are currently in play is impressive, and only getting bigger. This isn't a mini-LOA issue.
Also of note is the response of DALPA contract administration concerning this issue on the DALPA Pilot blog/committee corner/contract administration.
12-09-2013 | 05:41 PM
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,353
Likes: 54
From: 765A
I don't think we should rush into any contractual changes. IMHO, FAR 117 is very flawed and parts of it will be changed. I would have to sign a contract based on the current FAR only to have the FAR change.
12-09-2013 | 05:44 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
I'm not even sure I fully understand how we disagree, except I think you're saying that our contract has the same force has the law. I think the law takes precedence, and a contract that is illegal is not enforceable. I've only taken a semester of business law, so this isn't a legal opinion. I just remember being awake once and hearing something-something-contract-illegal-unenforceable.
Whether one of the parties has to simply eat their previously legal right, or both parties must renegotiate, I don't know.
SD isn't the judge: I do know that.
Whether one of the parties has to simply eat their previously legal right, or both parties must renegotiate, I don't know.
SD isn't the judge: I do know that.
But why does the -able to report in 12/respond in 2 get to survive intact for the company while we are forced to answer within 2, losing our contractual benefit (yes their interpretation meets the law, but does that mean they automatically get to impose it without negotiations or change reference the benefit of our current ability to take 9 hours?). -EDIT: georgetg has good summary of the conflict introduced.- If one doesn't acknowledge until 3 prior, you are still abiding by a clause in our RLA negotiated contract (not both tho) but you can't work the trip (due to far's), and by not working the trip you are meeting the FAR's. They're going to need alot more short call peeps.
How about extending long call to accomodate more time to respond along with the 10 hr far? Or any other type of negotiated solution, whether arrived at via mediation or other. I am guessing that the company wanted some negotiations on 117. EDIT: daldude came up with another perfectly viable solution (well, other than dealing with the FAA to get it).
or both parties must renegotiate
And I see your confusion in my post after re-reading a couple of times. And some misunderstanding on my own part. I'll blame it on multiple calls for dinner and kids......
On another note: Didn't sd's letter state that a pilot could voluntarily contact the company without breaking rest? If so, why can't one voluntarily acknowledge a legally assigned trip during rest the same way?
Looks like January is shaping up to be a month to avoid dipping your foot in the reserve pool.
12-09-2013 | 05:45 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
I also agree, at this time I would only pursue waivers to 117 that directly conflict with Delta PWA and do not uphold the spirit of 117 in regards to assuring proper rest.
12-09-2013 | 05:49 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
IThis is a legal interpretation of our PWA as provided by the MEC.
At times the PWA and the FARS can be more restrictive, this occurs throughout the PWA in just about any section.
If our current PWA gives us a 9-hour response time to acknowledge a call from scheduling, there is nothing in 117 that precludes that 9-hour response time.
The company is attempting to redefine the response time as 2-hour when on long-call but that is clearly contradictory to the PWA and the guidance provided in WSC.
It is inconvenient for scheduling to have to provide 19 hours notice to a long call pilot but that is the result of the restrictions in the PWA (9 hours to respond/schedule check) and the restrictions in FAR 117 (10 hours rest prior to a report).
At times the PWA and the FARS can be more restrictive, this occurs throughout the PWA in just about any section.
If our current PWA gives us a 9-hour response time to acknowledge a call from scheduling, there is nothing in 117 that precludes that 9-hour response time.
The company is attempting to redefine the response time as 2-hour when on long-call but that is clearly contradictory to the PWA and the guidance provided in WSC.
It is inconvenient for scheduling to have to provide 19 hours notice to a long call pilot but that is the result of the restrictions in the PWA (9 hours to respond/schedule check) and the restrictions in FAR 117 (10 hours rest prior to a report).
Yep. Why does our 9 hour response time go "poof" while the -able to report in 12- remains by default. Seems there would be a required negotiation here.
12-09-2013 | 05:55 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Not saying our contract has the same force as law or that law doesn't take precedence.
But why does the -able to report in 12/respond in 2 get to survive intact for the company while we are forced to answer within 2, losing our contractual benefit (yes their interpretation meets the law, but does that mean they automatically get to impose it without negotiations or change reference the benefit of our current ability to take 9 hours?). -EDIT: georgetg has good summary of the conflict introduced.- If one doesn't acknowledge until 3 prior, you are still abiding by a clause in our RLA negotiated contract (not both tho) but you can't work the trip (due to far's), and by not working the trip you are meeting the FAR's. They're going to need alot more short call peeps. How about extending long call to accomodate more time to respond along with the 10 hr far? Or any other type of negotiated solution, whether arrived at via mediation or other. I am guessing that the company wanted some negotiations on 117. EDIT: daldude came up with another perfectly viable solution (well, other than dealing with the FAA to get it).
Thats more the meat and potatoes about it. Does someone get to force their will regarding the now contradictory clauses, or will it have to be negotiated. I am hoping that the reason we got that memo is that this issue (or something) was a sticking point in the 117 negotiations and that all reserves are not going to end up on 2 hour short call contact (check's phrase) while on long call because dalpa didn't fight to somehow address our 3 hour benefit that is in our contract.
And I see your confusion in my post after re-reading a couple of times. And some misunderstanding on my own part. I'll blame it on multiple calls for dinner and kids......
On another note: Didn't sd's letter state that a pilot could voluntarily contact the company without breaking rest? If so, why can't one voluntarily acknowledge a legally assigned trip the same way?
Looks like January is shaping up to be a month to avoid dipping your foot in the reserve pool.
But why does the -able to report in 12/respond in 2 get to survive intact for the company while we are forced to answer within 2, losing our contractual benefit (yes their interpretation meets the law, but does that mean they automatically get to impose it without negotiations or change reference the benefit of our current ability to take 9 hours?). -EDIT: georgetg has good summary of the conflict introduced.- If one doesn't acknowledge until 3 prior, you are still abiding by a clause in our RLA negotiated contract (not both tho) but you can't work the trip (due to far's), and by not working the trip you are meeting the FAR's. They're going to need alot more short call peeps.
How about extending long call to accomodate more time to respond along with the 10 hr far? Or any other type of negotiated solution, whether arrived at via mediation or other. I am guessing that the company wanted some negotiations on 117. EDIT: daldude came up with another perfectly viable solution (well, other than dealing with the FAA to get it). Thats more the meat and potatoes about it. Does someone get to force their will regarding the now contradictory clauses, or will it have to be negotiated. I am hoping that the reason we got that memo is that this issue (or something) was a sticking point in the 117 negotiations and that all reserves are not going to end up on 2 hour short call contact (check's phrase) while on long call because dalpa didn't fight to somehow address our 3 hour benefit that is in our contract.
And I see your confusion in my post after re-reading a couple of times. And some misunderstanding on my own part. I'll blame it on multiple calls for dinner and kids......
On another note: Didn't sd's letter state that a pilot could voluntarily contact the company without breaking rest? If so, why can't one voluntarily acknowledge a legally assigned trip the same way?
Looks like January is shaping up to be a month to avoid dipping your foot in the reserve pool.
We do not want more short calls what we want is the status quo in this case. I believe the key is a waiver using your idea above concerning voluntary acknowledgement. If the FAA will agree, I believe Delta will immediately agree since they receive zero benefit from the 2 hour acknowledgement regarding cost or efficiency.
12-09-2013 | 06:20 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
From: M88 B
Anybody know if there is transportation from the terminal to the ALPA meeting tomorrow? I will have a few hours around lunch time and thought about checking out the MEC chairman debate.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
