|
|
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1582758)
Alright, just to recap...
Post A Post B Post C Post D I blame Deadhead. But, I don't think the FAA was unaware of what was going on with fatigue and pilots, but to rewrite the rules required an accident even if the cause of the accident wasn't fatigue. Without an accident there was no reason to make a change and therefore no political leverage. Then the tangent into woe is the RJ pilot. Here's my two cents...
http://www.rjet.ca/blog/wp-content/u...ectionE170.jpg http://www.happyjackusa.com/wp-conte...orizontal1.jpg and into these... http://simairline.net/delta/b1900d.jpg Hear they (MEC) are looking for one from our ranks again. Seems to make as much sense as some guys from Coronado going into indoc class to pick out someone to be a sniper for a mission the next day with a SEAL team. |
Originally Posted by Jughead
(Post 1582721)
Okay. Just took a trip to the basement and found my 146 stuff from 1995. It was there, under a 300 lb. black Acer desktop which I'm saving for the future.
We had six leased 88 passenger jets. Never were these aircraft configured with 69 seats. Service was to AVL, MCN, MYR, PAN, CSG, and TRI. At .63 Mach. http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-conte...06/chuffed.gif |
Originally Posted by Thrust Normal
(Post 1582969)
That exact situation happened to us the other day. We reported to the airport at 5:30am. The airplane had come in broke and was posting an 11:00am departure (which they new about the night before). Of course the part didn't arrive in time and we ended up leaving at 1:00pm. Had they did the one call notify, we could have all slept in. Shown up around 10am and flown are day as scheduled. However, having not notified us, we timed out when we arrived in Atlanta and had to DH back to base.
A number of commenters also asked whether FDP start time of a flightcrew member could be delayed by notifying that flightcrew member of the delay before beginning his/her FDP. In the preamble to the final flight, duty, and rest rule, the FAA stated that ‘‘FDP limits are determined by scheduled reporting time and not by actual reporting time.’’ The scheduled reporting time for an FDP is created once that FDP has been assigned to a flightcrew member. In order to change this scheduled reporting time, the flightcrew member would have to be shifted into either long-call or short-call reserve for the pertinent FDP. If long-call reserve is used to change the FDP start time, the flightcrew member would have to be provided proper notification of the change to the previously-scheduled FDP. Pursuant to the definition of long-call reserve in § 117.3, a flightcrew member on long- call reserve must be notified of the change to FDP start time before he or she begins the rest period specified in § 117.25. In addition, if the FDP infringes on the window of circadian low (WOCL), § 117.21(d) requires that the flightcrew member receive a 12-hour notice of the change to the FDP start time. If short-call reserve is used to change the FDP start time, the flightcrew member would have to be placed on short-call reserve at the time that his FDP was originally scheduled to begin. In that scenario, instead of beginning an FDP at the originally-scheduled start time, the flightcrew member would simply begin his reserve availability period (RAP) pursuant to § 117.21. The FAA emphasizes that if an FDP start time is not changed pursuant to the long-call or short-call reserve provisions of § 117.21, then the FDP begins at the time that it was originally scheduled to begin. Clear as mud? There would have been more flexibility for you if they used short call reserve but a pilot's contract may not allow for that. Either way your clock starts ticking at the scheduled FDP start time(either Table B or Table +4 hours applied to the beginning of the RAP). |
Originally Posted by profit
(Post 1583027)
I think you meant: step 3, profit..
2. more 76 seaters 3. profit |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1582991)
Let me say this, the only step 2 that I think works is when the true total cost of outsourcing exceeds it's value. Sure the cash cost could exceed income, but when it would be cheaper to have it in house even if it means losing the means to hold down mainline crew costs, then I think they'll do it.
The first step (ironically enough) is to convince our own union to pursue unity as a goal. The highest levels of ALPA leadership are opposed to unity, as was evident in the handling of the Compass divestiture from our MEC. I've been told from several sources that Lee Moak intended to make 76 seat flying a distinct "craft and class" apart from "mainline" flying. This distinction is unfortunate, particularly for those of us who understand the economics of the aircraft platform and how advances in technology have changed those economics. 76 seats is an arbitrary number and pretty much indefensible if put under economic duress. Some in Captain Moak's camp (not speaking for him because I do not know his personal position) still fear the Comair merger scenario and are still saying silly things like "seniority grab" while ignoring the fact that even Northwest, with 747's, did not get "Date of Hire." They continue to fight against unity and they support outsourcing. While fighting offshore outsourcing, they somehow ignore the fact that they support outsourcing at their own airline. If we can convince our own union that unity is worth pursuing, then we build an economic model with Delta pilots performing Delta flying and then negotiate. I believe the pseudo shortage of pilots for crappy jobs is an excellent opportunity to:
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1582968)
B) A lifer on the regional side that would sue ALPA if outsourcing was eliminated.
Note that Pinnacle was one of the few to take concessions for a career path. Now many are learning their Bridge agreement was in fact a Bridge to Nowhere. If pilots are willing to give away 25% to 30% of their earnings for an interview wouldn't they be better served by reaching a similar agreement for a real seniority number? Expressjet and Eagle said "NO." I'm sure however, if a real system seniority number were tied to the offer the answer would have been "YES." Management wants "YES." We should want UNITY. There is common ground we should explore which provides management a certain supply of pilots and provides pilots a seniority number they can use within that airline's system. |
My friend sent me this text, I'm going to throw this out as is
So I thought of an interesting legal issue for delta. Delta interviews Asa pilot who currently flies pax on flights that delta sells tickets for. Pilot fails interview, goes back to Asa, has mishap. Delta knowingly let a pilot they didn't approve of continue to fly their pax. Interesting issue brought on by outsourcing. If they failed hr interview delta probably has a decent argument. If they failed cog interview a little harder to argue you don't think they are good enough to fly mainline but your still comfortable putting pax on their jet. That's my vent for the day... |
Originally Posted by CGfalconHerc
(Post 1582674)
I just wanted to point out that RJ captains got a pretty good deal.
|
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1583087)
You answered your own question well.
The first step (ironically enough) is to convince our own union to pursue unity as a goal. The highest levels of ALPA leadership are opposed to unity, as was evident in the handling of the Compass divestiture from our MEC. I've been told from several sources that Lee Moak intended to make 76 seat flying a distinct "craft and class" apart from "mainline" flying. This distinction is unfortunate, particularly for those of us who understand the economics of the aircraft platform and how advances in technology have changed those economics. 76 seats is an arbitrary number and pretty much indefensible if put under economic duress. Some in Captain Moak's camp (not speaking for him because I do not know his personal position) still fear the Comair merger scenario and are still saying silly things like "seniority grab" while ignoring the fact that even Northwest, with 747's, did not get "Date of Hire." They continue to fight against unity and they support outsourcing. While fighting offshore outsourcing, they somehow ignore the fact that they support outsourcing at their own airline. If we can convince our own union that unity is worth pursuing, then we build an economic model with Delta pilots performing Delta flying and negotiate. I believe the pseudo shortage of pilots for crappy jobs is an excellent opportunity to:
Note that Pinnacle was one of the few to take concessions for a career path. Now many are learning their Bridge agreement was in fact a Bridge to Nowhere. If pilots are willing to give away 25% to 30% of their earnings for an interview wouldn't they be better served by reaching a similar agreement for a real seniority number? Expressjet and Eagle said "NO." I'm sure however, if a real system seniority number were tied to the offer the answer would have been "YES." Management wants "YES." We should want UNITY. There is common ground we should explore which provides management a certain supply of pilots and provides pilots a seniority number they can use within that airline's system. |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1582991)
The death of the 50 seater was about to provide that opportunity, then we threw them a lifeline and added 70 more jumbo RJs that are more profitable, lower CASM, better product, etc. Outsourcing got a desperately needed lifeline to continue for a long time. We screwed up. The MEC should have realized the ramifications of the 50 seat bailout. Why didn't they? |
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1583099)
How did the MEC fail so badly on such a strategic level? Sure, we had MEMRAT. But the rank-and-file crewdog should not be expected to be a strategist; after all, that's why we're paying dues.
The MEC should have realized the ramifications of the 50 seat bailout. Why didn't they? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:35 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands