Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
04-20-2014 | 10:01 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,775
Likes: 0
From: 777B
The other side of this needs to have nothing on day one before noon and long call needs to increase from the current 12 hours. I agree with others that 16 hours is the minimum acceptable, although I'd prefer 19. Even the company says (and pretty much seems to be sticking to) at least 16 hours in most cases, so it clearly can be done with around the same existing staffing.
Current language to the previous FAR's gave us the ability to turn the phone off for any 9 hour block we wanted to for rest (and therefore safety). The fantasy memo in question shreds that long established safety based protection and pretends to impose a fake non binding 2 hour rolling leash while on long call, which simply does not exist. While its true an arbitrator may attempt to "split the baby" to some degree, there is no, and there has never been, any contractual provision forcing long call pilots into a circadian busting 2 hour rolling leash. That "interpretation" if it can even be called that has a zero percent chance of becoming codified into an arbitrators ruling. That would be a massive, earth shattering case of "legislating from the bench" that would discredit the entire process because it would be made up out of thin air and imposed from pure desire.
The dangers here aren't so much the potentiality of a rogue broken arrow arbitrator so much as us getting lost in the murky details and getting distracted by tertiary issues. Trying to tie an issue totally and completely about reserve notification issues into the web of etherial constructs like door pay and other things is a trap and a sure sign the company is playing chess 3 moves ahead while we're focusing on one checker piece at a time.
This issue is about reserve notification and the result needs to fix those issues first, not be a source of funding for other things in exchange for give backs, last day schedule checks and 2 hour long call leashes.
Current language to the previous FAR's gave us the ability to turn the phone off for any 9 hour block we wanted to for rest (and therefore safety). The fantasy memo in question shreds that long established safety based protection and pretends to impose a fake non binding 2 hour rolling leash while on long call, which simply does not exist. While its true an arbitrator may attempt to "split the baby" to some degree, there is no, and there has never been, any contractual provision forcing long call pilots into a circadian busting 2 hour rolling leash. That "interpretation" if it can even be called that has a zero percent chance of becoming codified into an arbitrators ruling. That would be a massive, earth shattering case of "legislating from the bench" that would discredit the entire process because it would be made up out of thin air and imposed from pure desire.
The dangers here aren't so much the potentiality of a rogue broken arrow arbitrator so much as us getting lost in the murky details and getting distracted by tertiary issues. Trying to tie an issue totally and completely about reserve notification issues into the web of etherial constructs like door pay and other things is a trap and a sure sign the company is playing chess 3 moves ahead while we're focusing on one checker piece at a time.
This issue is about reserve notification and the result needs to fix those issues first, not be a source of funding for other things in exchange for give backs, last day schedule checks and 2 hour long call leashes.
I would be interested in any pro/con arguments in respect to it.
04-20-2014 | 11:55 PM
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 66
04-21-2014 | 12:55 AM
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
I change out of my uniform, pull out a wrinkled pilot shirt and regional airline logos, put on some crocs and stumble around the airport in the most homeless manner possible.
04-21-2014 | 03:31 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Likes: 0
...deleted...
Last edited by Sink r8; 04-21-2014 at 03:48 AM.
04-21-2014 | 03:48 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Likes: 0
The other side of this needs to have nothing on day one before noon and long call needs to increase from the current 12 hours. I agree with others that 16 hours is the minimum acceptable, although I'd prefer 19. Even the company says (and pretty much seems to be sticking to) at least 16 hours in most cases, so it clearly can be done with around the same existing staffing.
Current language to the previous FAR's gave us the ability to turn the phone off for any 9 hour block we wanted to for rest (and therefore safety). The fantasy memo in question shreds that long established safety based protection and pretends to impose a fake non binding 2 hour rolling leash while on long call, which simply does not exist. While its true an arbitrator may attempt to "split the baby" to some degree, there is no, and there has never been, any contractual provision forcing long call pilots into a circadian busting 2 hour rolling leash. That "interpretation" if it can even be called that has a zero percent chance of becoming codified into an arbitrators ruling. That would be a massive, earth shattering case of "legislating from the bench" that would discredit the entire process because it would be made up out of thin air and imposed from pure desire.
The dangers here aren't so much the potentiality of a rogue broken arrow arbitrator so much as us getting lost in the murky details and getting distracted by tertiary issues. Trying to tie an issue totally and completely about reserve notification issues into the web of etherial constructs like door pay and other things is a trap and a sure sign the company is playing chess 3 moves ahead while we're focusing on one checker piece at a time.
This issue is about reserve notification and the result needs to fix those issues first, not be a source of funding for other things in exchange for give backs, last day schedule checks and 2 hour long call leashes.
Current language to the previous FAR's gave us the ability to turn the phone off for any 9 hour block we wanted to for rest (and therefore safety). The fantasy memo in question shreds that long established safety based protection and pretends to impose a fake non binding 2 hour rolling leash while on long call, which simply does not exist. While its true an arbitrator may attempt to "split the baby" to some degree, there is no, and there has never been, any contractual provision forcing long call pilots into a circadian busting 2 hour rolling leash. That "interpretation" if it can even be called that has a zero percent chance of becoming codified into an arbitrators ruling. That would be a massive, earth shattering case of "legislating from the bench" that would discredit the entire process because it would be made up out of thin air and imposed from pure desire.
The dangers here aren't so much the potentiality of a rogue broken arrow arbitrator so much as us getting lost in the murky details and getting distracted by tertiary issues. Trying to tie an issue totally and completely about reserve notification issues into the web of etherial constructs like door pay and other things is a trap and a sure sign the company is playing chess 3 moves ahead while we're focusing on one checker piece at a time.
This issue is about reserve notification and the result needs to fix those issues first, not be a source of funding for other things in exchange for give backs, last day schedule checks and 2 hour long call leashes.
I would add that you have to consider all consequences, and use the changes to design a better Reserve system overall.
The first area that's pretty much a no-brainer is that the company no longer gets the free use of a pilot on their last X-day, by requiring them to check their schedule (always thought that was bogus).
The second area to look into is to make LC more user-friendly.
The third area you need to factor in is SC (how it works, and how often you're stuck with it).
These parts interact. If the company has less access to Reserve on the morning of the first on-call day, and you design a LC system that's unusable, then Reserve pilots are going to take it on the chin by sitting all contractually available SC days, on SC. Which is bad for commuters and drivers alike.
One way to solve this might be a LC system like TWA had. The call-out was 9 hours from 9-5, and 15 hours from 5PM - 9AM (I think). We could design a LC system that's 10 hours during daytime, and 16 hours at night. That might be a good balance for a truly commutable LC system that also reduces the incentive to bring in every Reserve pilot to sit 7 SC a month.
I don't commute, but I think you could improve everyone's QOL by reducing the total number of SC, and making the LC commutable. I don't really want a phyrric victory on the LC, where we get (only) a great LC, but it doesn't matter, because we never get to actually sit LC. So perhaps, we need a system that reduces the numbers of SC (and lets us bid SC windows by seniority, not just put in "requests"), strengthens the LC system, and of course incorporates the fact that 117 voids any obligations to check schedules while on X-days. It would be nice to get that last part in the contract, before some airline successfully petitions for some interpretation that says it's OK to ever so gently force us to check our schedules on our last X-day...
04-21-2014 | 03:55 AM
Wind the clock beoch
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
The precedent for the vast majority of reserve pilots has been well beyond 10:00. The contract absolutely does allow acknowledgement NLT 3:00 prior to report, agreed. The "past practice" does not show pilots waiting until right before the minimum to acknowledge. An attempt by an RLA regulated labor union to disrupt the flow of commerce will not be met kindly by the federal courts.
What the contract allows for is to be able to check your schedule, turn your phone OFF (and get some uninterrupted sleep), wake up, check your schedule, and then acknowledge a trip that signs in 3 hours from your wakeup. It's spelled out in the PWA and When Scheduling Calls. According to you, LC pilots should be tied to their phone 24/7 despite the unambiguous language to the contrary.
Your opinion about what a federal court would or would not do is just that-- an opinion.
I'd say the ability for UAL and AMR to get injunctions for sick calls, DAL getting an injunction for a no overtime campaign, LCC getting an injunction for aircraft write-ups, MSA getting an injunction to prohibit a strike while in BK is an extremely clear indication that management can very easily get injunctive relief when a pilot union intentionally "works to rule" outside of NMB approved self help. But hey, what do I know (other than looking at multiple recent examples within our own industry).
04-21-2014 | 04:11 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Likes: 0
Unless you can post the data to support your claim, it is nothing but conjecture.
What the contract allows for is to be able to check your schedule, turn your phone OFF (and get some uninterrupted sleep), wake up, check your schedule, and then acknowledge a trip that signs in 3 hours from your wakeup. It's spelled out in the PWA and When Scheduling Calls. According to you, LC pilots should be tied to their phone 24/7 despite the unambiguous language to the contrary.
Your opinion about what a federal court would or would not do is just that-- an opinion.
Different issues. Different circumstances. It's hard to imagine what the irreparable harm would be in this situation. Or that there is a substantial likelihood that the company would prevail on the merits. But even if they did get an injunction, so what?
What the contract allows for is to be able to check your schedule, turn your phone OFF (and get some uninterrupted sleep), wake up, check your schedule, and then acknowledge a trip that signs in 3 hours from your wakeup. It's spelled out in the PWA and When Scheduling Calls. According to you, LC pilots should be tied to their phone 24/7 despite the unambiguous language to the contrary.
Your opinion about what a federal court would or would not do is just that-- an opinion.
Different issues. Different circumstances. It's hard to imagine what the irreparable harm would be in this situation. Or that there is a substantial likelihood that the company would prevail on the merits. But even if they did get an injunction, so what?
I believe that checking your schedule on the last X-day is also part of the contract, and WSC, yet I think we all agree that 117 nullifies any requirement to check our schedule when we're off. I'm totally guessing here, but I think we'd be able to make that case very easily.
On the flip side, could the company prevail in saying our right to acknowledge 3 hours prior is now voided by 117? I don't know, and neither do you.
I'd rather we approach this along the lines of Gloppy's post, and talk about what we need to accomplish WRT Reserves.
04-21-2014 | 04:38 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Took a selfie this morning
When you see G#2 starting to go out late in the moth yet folks who have already got Greenslips, senior in category, start putting in WHITE slips with 0 reserve coverage. I mean, they must like flying for half pay.
No wonder we don't need many pilots.
When you see G#2 starting to go out late in the moth yet folks who have already got Greenslips, senior in category, start putting in WHITE slips with 0 reserve coverage. I mean, they must like flying for half pay.
No wonder we don't need many pilots.
04-21-2014 | 04:40 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,166
Likes: 0
From: 737 Capt
04-21-2014 | 04:42 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
From: Right hemisphere of DCFranken9's brain
Sorry for the thread creep, but this is the best place to get answers for my stupid questions. I heard a rumor that you can back out of an AE and stay in your existing equipment. Back on the March 18th AE, I inadvertently bid for something that I got. Although, not too bad of a mistake I am having second thoughts about making this move. Does anyone know if there is truth to the rumor about a one-time opps, then being frozen in your current equipment? Thanks
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
