I overheard that SLC Capt rep last week... in all my time at Delta, I have never listened to a person I felt represented the pilot's point-of-view or needs and desires, less. I literally thought I was watching some scheduling company man for most of the discussion. He arrogantly dismissed every point pilots made, and it appeared his mission was to argue why the most extreme pro-company scheduling view of any FAR 117 issue was the absolutely only viable view.

I can't honestly think of a person I've ever met at Delta whom I would want to represent me less. In subsequent discussions overheard with the CP, I heard a much better and more pro-pilot attitude. I felt I was in some movie where the Priest you go to for help is actually Satan in disguise...

Your SLC rep is an idiot!

Recall the clown!

His actual statement was that they might begin the hiring process in the fall of 12. They never intended to hire at that point. They did plan on hiring 100 to 150 pilots in the first quarter of 13. They were to smooth out the 717 pipeline and reduce training events.
Senior management made a decision that a first quarter profit was more important then flight ops training needs and all hiring was suspended. I am not a financial expert and don't understand why it was a priority however some smart people felt in the long run it took precedence over flight ops desire to hire,
The good news is it has no effect on total pilot numbers. They will end up the same regardless of when the hiring started. The other good news is that the number of pilots will will need has been revised up with the addition of 40 more airframes and slowed retirements of existing aircraft.
I am puzzled by one thing. The same pilots who keep bringing up on here about the lack of hiring last winter have also predicted furloughs for last fall many times. Did they really expect hiring when they stated many times we would furlough due to their interpretation of massive job loss from the contract?

DL Driver, the Scheduling Reference Handbook on the DALPA web site is a great resource. Here are some excerpts from page 97.

2. “10 before beginning” Before beginning any RAP or FDP, a pilot must have received at least 10 hours of rest with a minimum of eight uninterrupted hours of sleep opportunity. A sleep opportunity generally commences once the pilot is at a location where he can reasonably be expected to go to sleep and not have that sleep interrupted, such as a hotel. Exception: A pilot who is on short call does not have to receive 10 hours of rest prior to beginning an FDP that starts during his short call period

Although an FDP ends at block in of the last flying segment, a pilot’s rest does not begin until he is released from duty, which is normally 30 minutes after block in of the last segment, flying or deadhead.
During each required 10 hour rest period (#2 above), a pilot must determine whether he has received a minimum of eight consecutive hours of sleep opportunity. Any disturbance, such as a fire alarm, phone call from the company, etc., requires him to determine whether his sleep opportunity has been interrupted. For example, some pilots may have no problem returning to sleep after hearing a fire alarm, while others may find it difficult to get back to sleep even if the interruption was short. A pilot who is unable to get back to sleep would be required to advise Crew Tracking or Crew Scheduling that his sleep opportunity was interrupted. The rest period would no longer satisfy the requirement for 10 hours of rest with eight hours of uninterrupted sleep opportunity, and the pilot’s schedule would have to be adjusted as necessary.

Thanks. I had it right in the first place and got thrown off by my rep's reply. In my original scenario, I had the flight arriving on time at 2200 with the release time of 2230 resulting in a minimum 10 hour layover (originally scheduled report time the next morning of 0830 for a departure at 0930).

Thanks again, but I fully understand that. I wasn't suggesting that any of us should alter the pick up and report times without coordinating with Crew Tracking. In the scenario from my "pop quiz," I would have agreed to a pickup time of no earlier than 0910 (giving me 9 hours behind the door), which would put the report time at 0930. I would have also agreed to a 30 minute report so that the flight would only be delayed 30 minutes instead of an hour. This would put the new departure time for the flight at 1000 instead of 0930. Of course, that is the minimum I would agree to personally. If my First Officer needed more time in the room to have an opportunity for 8 hours of sleep, then we would go with a later time. And, yes, Crew Tracking would be in on all of this.

Gee, that would have been something pertinent for DALPA to mention during the sales job, don't you think?

Tell that to the guys who were stuck on reserve...or in the right seat...or out of their base of preference for another year. Tell that to the guys who were beaten like rented mules last summer, and will be again in March (thanks for the 30 day summer bid periods). I'm sure they'll feel much better about it.

That's a complete fabrication and classic sailingfun red herring. Where do you come up with this stuff? Are you sure you're not a company spokesman? :confused:

He's not my rep. I'm ATL based. But I do agree he's an idiot.

This guy is to this day highly respected within DALPA. At one point not too long ago, he was chairman of the negotiating committee. It's guys that think like him that have caused me to lose all faith in DALPA's ability to represent us.

Sailing,

What Steve Diickson wrote was that IF contract 2012 was ratified THEN he anticipated hiring would begin in the fall of 2012 and continue in the Spring of 2013. (it was in one of his weekly howgozit "that's all for now" briefs and I posted it here the last time this came up.)

Many pilots did consider this publication to be a conditional promise. They responded, voted for the contract and feel that the Company breached that promise.

It probably isn't Steve Dickson's fault. I believe his statement was made in good faith. It turned out to be incorrect.