Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-17-2014 | 10:59 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,890
Likes: 0
From: 737A
I think it's disengenuous to claim any CDO is unsafe when we already allow ridiculous 2 man redeyes like Lima. A 1.5 block CDO would be a piece of cake comparatively.
05-17-2014 | 11:07 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
). It's Delta's flying and as long as a Delta pilot is flying it for good compensation I don't care. My question to you is are you ok with our contract allowing middle of the night 10:34 3 days?You idea about other bases flying it is great. It would have to be at least a "real" 4 day for it to work which means it will pay much better then it does now. Problem is we have no control as to how they schedule it and who fly's it.
05-17-2014 | 11:08 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,642
Likes: 0
From: right for a long, long time
Denny,
It is relevant. I'm not asking about the legality. I totally understand how a CDO is legal (although not safe).
Sleep science has determined that the average person needs 8 hours of sleep in order to function best. The FAA has determined that this is applicable to pilots and flying. It was part of the thinking that went into FAR 117.
If you want to answer my question, you will need to answer it from the standpoint of safety, not legality.
It is relevant. I'm not asking about the legality. I totally understand how a CDO is legal (although not safe).
Sleep science has determined that the average person needs 8 hours of sleep in order to function best. The FAA has determined that this is applicable to pilots and flying. It was part of the thinking that went into FAR 117.
If you want to answer my question, you will need to answer it from the standpoint of safety, not legality.
Hmmm, so we should immediately ground a large portion of the FDX and UPS flying? I mean who can fly more than one leg per night?
/sarcasm/
FAR 117 is a science based set of rule changes that had half of the ARC members from airline pilot labor groups, unless I read it incorrectly...
Again... Let us all please just wait and see what the document contains before going off and passing judgment on something we have not evaluated.
05-17-2014 | 11:13 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,971
Likes: 0
From: Kickin’ Back
Denny,
It is relevant. I'm not asking about the legality. I totally understand how a CDO is legal (although not safe).
Sleep science has determined that the average person needs 8 hours of sleep in order to function best. The FAA has determined that this is applicable to pilots and flying. It was part of the thinking that went into FAR 117.
If you want to answer my question, you will need to answer it from the standpoint of safety, not legality.
It is relevant. I'm not asking about the legality. I totally understand how a CDO is legal (although not safe).
Sleep science has determined that the average person needs 8 hours of sleep in order to function best. The FAA has determined that this is applicable to pilots and flying. It was part of the thinking that went into FAR 117.
If you want to answer my question, you will need to answer it from the standpoint of safety, not legality.
FAR 117 requires the opportunity to get 8 hours of sleep. It's based on widely accepted sleep science and the need to be properly rested before flying. How do you get "8 hours of uninterrupted sleep opportunity" with the requirements you listed?
No where do you mention "safe." Since a CDO is one duty period, you get your 10+ hours of rest prior to sign in. There is no legal requirement to get 8 hours between flights in the same duty period. It makes asking your question irrelevant. You aren't required to get it.
Again, I'm not going to get into the safe or not argument. That is debatable and I think depends on the circumstances.
Denny
05-17-2014 | 11:13 AM
At home on the maddog!
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,874
Likes: 0
From: Retired (mandatory age 65)
Not directed solely at you, but you're the most recent poster on the subject...
Hmmm, so we should immediately ground a large portion of the FDX and UPS flying? I mean who can fly more than one leg per night?
/sarcasm/
FAR 117 is a science based set of rule changes that had half of the ARC members from airline pilot labor groups, unless I read it incorrectly...
Again... Let us all please just wait and see what the document contains before going off and passing judgment on something we have not evaluated.
Hmmm, so we should immediately ground a large portion of the FDX and UPS flying? I mean who can fly more than one leg per night?
/sarcasm/
FAR 117 is a science based set of rule changes that had half of the ARC members from airline pilot labor groups, unless I read it incorrectly...
Again... Let us all please just wait and see what the document contains before going off and passing judgment on something we have not evaluated.
Just because it's "legal" (surely, you have to agree this is a loophole... a way of getting around the FAR) doesn't mean it's safe.
05-17-2014 | 11:16 AM
At home on the maddog!
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,874
Likes: 0
From: Retired (mandatory age 65)
Here is your post:
FAR 117 requires the opportunity to get 8 hours of sleep. It's based on widely accepted sleep science and the need to be properly rested before flying. How do you get "8 hours of uninterrupted sleep opportunity" with the requirements you listed?
No where do you mention "safe." Since a CDO is one duty period, you get your 10+ hours of rest prior to sign in. There is no legal requirement to get 8 hours between flights in the same duty period. It makes asking your question irrelevant. You aren't required to get it.
Again, I'm not going to get into the safe or not argument. That is debatable and I think depends on the circumstances.
Denny
FAR 117 requires the opportunity to get 8 hours of sleep. It's based on widely accepted sleep science and the need to be properly rested before flying. How do you get "8 hours of uninterrupted sleep opportunity" with the requirements you listed?
No where do you mention "safe." Since a CDO is one duty period, you get your 10+ hours of rest prior to sign in. There is no legal requirement to get 8 hours between flights in the same duty period. It makes asking your question irrelevant. You aren't required to get it.
Again, I'm not going to get into the safe or not argument. That is debatable and I think depends on the circumstances.
Denny
05-17-2014 | 11:21 AM
Works Every Weekend
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,506
Likes: 0
From: 737 ATL
I hope you elected intelligent and thoughtful reps then...
There are several reasons why it was given to the reps, and most, if not all of them are good!
I don't need MEMRAT to secure a good deal, we have elected 19 extremely diverse pilots to weigh the merits.
Don't like your reps ability to make thoughtful, logical, rational decisions in the best interest of ALL Delta pilots?
Well you should have acted a long time ago to rectify it,
There are several reasons why it was given to the reps, and most, if not all of them are good!
I don't need MEMRAT to secure a good deal, we have elected 19 extremely diverse pilots to weigh the merits.
Don't like your reps ability to make thoughtful, logical, rational decisions in the best interest of ALL Delta pilots?
Well you should have acted a long time ago to rectify it,
Just trying to interpret your posts.
So you are OK with the MEC voting without releasing the LOA to the line pilots?
Cuz that's what I'm hearing they are going to do.
You seem to be running a little interference and justifying that decision.
Can you lay out the logic? Why do they want to do this in secret?
It seems some reps wanted to put out detailed info, but the majority has said no.
Last edited by Check Essential; 05-17-2014 at 11:33 AM.
05-17-2014 | 11:31 AM
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 833
Likes: 5
From: Captain
Shiznit said (((If they debate and decide the pilots would slam dunk a "Yes", why bother with the union expense (20-40k) and delayed implementation of the benefits of the agreement?)))
I guess that would be true if there weren't some "negatives" that also would be delayed by involving the pilots in ratification. If there were no gives in this deal, I might agree with you, but apparently there are CDO's and rumors of other gives.
20 to 40k is a drop in the bucket compared to the money spent on the SC, electioneers at the BOD etc. At least memrat is directly involving the line pilot in the process. That would be dues dollars well spent IMO.
I guess that would be true if there weren't some "negatives" that also would be delayed by involving the pilots in ratification. If there were no gives in this deal, I might agree with you, but apparently there are CDO's and rumors of other gives.
20 to 40k is a drop in the bucket compared to the money spent on the SC, electioneers at the BOD etc. At least memrat is directly involving the line pilot in the process. That would be dues dollars well spent IMO.
05-17-2014 | 11:42 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,971
Likes: 0
From: Kickin’ Back
Denny
05-17-2014 | 11:49 AM
At home on the maddog!
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,874
Likes: 0
From: Retired (mandatory age 65)
I've read all the posts. What you want to do is separate "legal" from "safe." If we could do that, then I think you would be correct but that's not the reality of the situation. I don't think you can separate them, hence my answer to your question. Since CDO's were not excluded by 117, I have to conclude the panel that developed 117 evaluated CDO's and thought they would be safe enough to perform. (I'm not saying I agree with it but that's my interpretation.)
Denny
Denny
Yeah, I agree with you. It's legal.
But it's not safe. Now way no how.
Maybe they had one "panel" that decided 8 hours of sleep was important and another panel that decided it wasn't?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
