Airline Pilot Central Forums - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)

- - Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/36912-any-latest-greatest-about-delta.html)

Meanwhile…over in "Sim Land"

HAPPY EASTER!!!

http://i775.photobucket.com/albums/y...pse7b50d2f.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cohiba (Post 1627117)

Now I'm confused. If I check my schedule on my last X day at 10:30 pm and nothing is assigned and I go to bed. Delta calls at 01:30 am and assigns me a 3:30 pm trip. Do I need to acknowledge it prior to 0200 or should I skip it and when I wake up in the morning, call in (but not have 10 hours prior to the trip)"

Call your rep ASAP.

I waited until I woke up (this as in March). 5 hours prior to report, the trip was taken off my line and I was given a PD. Since then I have acknowledged. I can't afford to have my pay taken via PDs every time!

Quote:

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1627115)

I prefer my agent to be calm, collected, patient, and willing to take the time to make the right agreement;

Now that's funny right there! Didn't you vote YES for C2012? :eek:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Purple Drank (Post 1627026)

tsquare,

How can there be any "unity" when DALPA says, "It's ok if you follow the contract...and it's ok if you don't! It's up to you!" Because that's exactly what they've said. DALPA has made the contract optional. Truly mind-boggling.

PD,

How exactly is the union saying it's ok if you don't follow the contract? What part of the contract are they saying it's ok for us not to follow?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cohiba (Post 1627117)

First of all, why would you check your schedule on your x-day? That was contractually required (and permitted under FAR's) before 117. 117 no longer allows the company to required the schedule check on your last X-day.

That's one point of contention.

The next point of contention is whether you have some obligation to acknowledge > 10 hrs, since they started calling you 14 hours prior to your trip, but the contract allows you acknowledge up to 3 hours prior.

I've always thought that contractual provisions that become illegal are void, but I don't know how the concept applies to CBA's. My initial read of 117 was that the company would lose the ability to use Reserves before 1200 on their first on-call day, and we would lose the 3-hour acknowledgement.

Of course, I always supposed we'd renegotiate the affected portions. SD just tried to void the parts he wants voided, by memo, and tried to let people believe they still have a duty to perform the parts he can no longer require (check your schedule on your last X-day).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 1627142)

I've always thought that contractual provisions that become illegal are void, but I don't know how the concept applies to CBA's. My initial read of 117 was that the company would lose the ability to use Reserves before 1200 on their first on-call day, and we would lose the 3-hour acknowledgement.

The 3 hour acknowledgement window in the CBA isn't actually illegal, it's just not workable in most situations. What I mean is, it's not illegal to acknowledge an assignment 3 hours prior to scheduled report, it's just illegal to actually start a FDP with less than 10 hours notice. So for instance - if you're assigned a rotation that has a DH only on the first day (therefore, not, by definition, a FDP) you could acknowledge as little as 3 hours prior and still be legal (both 117 and PWA) for the trip. Since the PWA doesn't directly violate any laws, it isn't automatically void.

Quote:

Originally Posted by index (Post 1626713)

Your analogy is seriously flawed. First, figuring out the correct pilot to pay one pilot on a missed GS should take hours, days, maybe a week. It should never take 4 months.

Your example merely involves administrative research to find the correct pilot who should be pay protected. In this case, both sides generally agree to the established criteria for who should get paid.

In the case of the SD memo, the company has repeatedly and unilaterally violated our contract. There is no disagreement in interpretation. It was and is a willful, ongoing, and intentional violation of our contract. They even announced their proclamation 3 weeks ahead of the start date of 117.

This smackdown of the pilot group should've been met with a strong response from DALPA. It was met with a whimper. You want unity? DALPA had a rare opportunity to take a stand that would've had the entire pilot group behind them. They chose not to.

We've already received the "no, we're not paying it" from the company in the form of the SD memo. They told us 3 weeks ahead of time what they were going to do and then they did exactly what they said they would do. It could not be any more clear. An MEC group grievance should've been filed on January 1st. The two sides could still engage but now the clock is at least started. Sure there is uncertainty as to the outcome. That cuts both ways. We can't continue to be afraid to take a stand.

Wow. I was only trying to give an illustrative example of how the 120 day time limit in the contract could be extended, not some analogy to the current 117 negotiations. While you make it sound as though it is all easy peasy to get stuff paid, I can recall times, especially after significant IROPS, where the number of rotation coverage issues requiring research was enormous and certainly took more than a week, not to mention then sitting down with the company, showing them the research and getting them to agree to pay the pilot. Sometimes it's quick and sometimes it isn't. I agree that if there was only one pilot issue to be worked, it could be done rather quickly. The Scheduling Committee processes thousands of pilot issues every year. You are obviously passionate about these issues. If you have ideas as to how these things can be processed, paid and closed more expeditiously I encourage you to reach out to your reps and let them know you would like to help. I know my reps keep advertising for volunteers to step up every time I read their code-a-phone message.

You asked if I wanted unity even though I have made no mention of that. I do believe it is in our collective best interest, but you must be attributing someone else's statements to me. I didn't say anything about unity in my posts. I only tried to agree with you and show an example of how the 120 day limit could be tolled. :confused:

Your post also makes it sound to me as though DALPA has and is doing nothing about the 117 issue. That is disingenuous and it isn't accurate in my opinion. There certainly is a disagreement in interpretation/application of 117 and our PWA. DALPA believes one thing and is confident in their case and the company believes a different thing and is confident in its case as well. They are attempting to negotiate an agreement. If that fails, DALPA has said they will file the grievance. Either way, I want something to happen soon as this is really dragging out. That I believe we agree on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newKnow (Post 1626900)

Ha. Ha. Nothing is black & white in contract disputes. Especially, when the law (regulations) just changed.

The company will probably argue changed circumstances, illegality, and impossibility.

Our position will probably be that they can't get something for nothing.

It will be much fun for the lawyers on both sides. :)

I agree completely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dash8widget (Post 1627162)

Agree, and I think it applys to more than just deadheads. The way I see it is you are not illegal to start a trip if you wait until 3 hrs prior to acknowledge...however you are illegal to start at the originally scheduled time. The company has the option to delay the flight 7 additional hours to give you 10 hrs rest. They just generally choose to move on to the pilot next in line (and PD the day without pay for you).