See my response to Scoop. I think that pretty well covers it.

 

80, you seem to be constructing the argument that since we already do backside of the clock flying, that it's OK to add more backside of the clock flying (on less than ideal rest).

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's safe, or even smart.

DALPA has brought a lot of attention to the fact that our PWA is more restrictive than the FARs. I'd like to keep it that way.

Forget about the short term pay bump. Selling work rules for pay is a strategic fail. By negotiating them into our PWA we are hamstringing ourselves from being able to make a (valid) safety argument in the future.

In the next downturn when management comes looking for concessions, the pay we sold these work rules for is there for the taking, leaving us with...

One more thought. (yes we haven't seen the final language) but if this is shaping up how 80 is indicating (that we are selling CDOs for pay)...

... Which one of us would like to volunteer to explain to the famlies of the folks on flight 3407 that we used FAR 117 not to capture more rest and safety gains, but chose to monetize them as concessions?

 

+1..

My Brother, anything with the name CDO, illegal, standup etc, needs to be banned and not even thought about. Maybe the company can bribe a certain amount of pilots via pay to accept the assignment or sign the release stating they are fit for duty. But I guarantee, fit for duty does not even come close to being the truth as relating to a CDO.

There is no need to even look at the details involving a CDO. It purely is a concession and hypocrisy. Another reason I think the FAA is part management (P117 should ban CDOs and 8+hour domestic).

TEN

 

My opinion only, Oceancrossings, are quit a bit different than a CDO. I have done both, and even though I am not able to sleep in a bunk during Augmented flights, I feel more refreshed than I would on a CDO. Plus there is a 3rd or 4th pilot for backup.

TEN

 

My biggest concerns are what is the earliest potential report on day one, and how long is long call and how long/what type of leash is it?

If the TA can't be a solid win in both those areas, the flow chart should stop and nothing else should be considered. If we get bravo sierra 5am reports on day one again we got sold out. Period. If we keep noon or later, it may be a win.

 

I can live with them if they are treated as 2 separate duty periods for pay purposes (10:30 for one of them). I doubt that will happen though. I hate doing them, but they really would go senior if they paid that much. Also put in a clause that reserves can't do them. Force the ones in open time to go to green slips.

 

Here is the problem with your whole post.

This LOA could be voted in without Memrat by the MEC without the pilots having access to the details so as to make an evaluative decision.

The argument given by one of the Los Angeles reps for not having Memrat was that it would be logistically to difficult to and time consuming to explain the information behind months of nuanced negotiations. Furthermore, he stated that a pilot vote would likely be emotionally driven vs. thoughtful consideration of an analysis of the facts.

So, if the TA has been released to the LEC Reps, then why not the pilots? There could be several reasons why, none of them good.

In conclusion, ratifying a TA without Memrat that contains concessionary language, language that significantly alters OUR pilot working agreement, or contains conditional, restrictive or exclusionary language for ADG's, duty rigs and other pay events will have severe implications for our union representatives at all levels.

 

I probably won't do them. But I ask you. We fly LIM-ATL every day, 7 hour allnighter, sun up for the last 3 hours--absolutely brutal. Is that "safe?"

Further, when I flew the 88, I found four consecutive days of early-birds to be completely fatiguing, but others liked them.

I'm not saying that these CDOs are good, or bad. I'm saying give it a little time. I can point out plenty of trips system-wide all all fleets that are more fatiguing than a CDO--many. Are they "unsafe?"

 

Gloopy,

All valid concerns (I assume you are talking about reserves) but remember everyone has different concerns/wants etc.

We need to look at any agreement as a whole. Many folks will have their automatic "no" vote/opinion on a specific issue and that is fine. Hell I guess that could be an argument for ratification.

I am very skeptical on conceding on CDOs for numerous reasons but I want to see the big picture before coming to conclusions.

Scoop

 

Wow..."severe implications." That sounds like a "stern" letter from MD to the company in its ferocity. What kinds of implications? Are you going to lead the charge?