nevermind... back to ignore you go. I don't have to read your posts to know what they say.

OK... I can buy off on that... maybe. Great find btw...

Purple-
I've been trying to wrap my head around this no acknowledgement thing.

The way I see it if we have a 13 hour long call then how often you have to check your schedule (or your voicemail, texts, e-mail or whatever you prefer) is going to depend entirely on where you are.

If you are packed and ready to go and you are one hour from the airport then you could turn your phone off for 12 hours. As long as when you do check, you can get there in one hour.

You would only need to check every 3 hours if you were 10 hours away.

Bottom line is they no longer care if you acknowledge. There's not going to be any acknowledging. You just have to get there within 13 hours of their first attempted call. How you do it is your business.

Not sure if I like that or not. Still mulling. It certainly is different.
Somebody was thinking outside the box.

I agree. There seems to be a change in their attitude. I wonder why. :confused:

I'm getting a little confused here. I haven't seen the letter yet, so can someone help me out?

Couldn't they have thought outside the box 5 months ago and avoided all this to begin with?

In January, we said the contract says acknowledgment 3 hours to report. They said the FAR's require acknowledgment 10 hours to report.

Now, they are saying no acknowledgment is required at all? What gives? :confused:

Now

The problem was the contract. We had to acknowledge and we didn't have to check our schedule and acknowledge until 3 hours prior. That meant we had an obligation. And we could postpone that obligation until as short as 3 hours prior to report and that made it illegal. It wasn't "rest" and it wasn't 10 hours.

The contract did not jibe with 117. It had to be changed. Either by negotiation or grievance.

This is definitely a game changer--whether in a good or bad way remains to be seen, but I think it is going to be much, much better. I always emphasize to guys, that if on long call, as long as you are in a "contactable environment" then you always have a 12 (soon to be 13) hour continuously rolling bubble in front of you. That means you can have a beer with dinner etc.

Once you turn off your phone and go fishing, turn off your phone's ringer and go to sleep, or whatever it is that takes you outside of your "contactable" status, then you just have to assume that scheduling called the next second with a trip reporting exactly 12/13 hours later. Adjust your behavior accordingly, and then check your schedule as needed to be able to responsibly report. If you are ATL-based and live in Peachtree City, you could probably turn off the phone up to 10 hours at a time. If you live in Pennsylvania and are NYC-based, that probably goes to as little as seven.

Actually, as I type this, if this is true (no mandatory schedule check, but it is on the long call pilot to show up for his trips ready to fly) the more I like it. It should put a lot of the "SD memo" angst to rest.

Has anyone stated yet that the devil is in the details?.....:o

If I were a negative guy I would say "somehow we're getting screwed." Since I'm a positive guy I'll say "Yes, that is quite odd."

Wow.

It would be quite a leap for Delta to sanction passive notification vs positive acknowledgment.

I had a different experience. As a NW reserve pilot I had to fly alot of CDO's. I do not buy that they are always going to go senior. (others said they would as well, not just picking on you new)

More than a handfull that I had to fly were with the same individual. He lived in base, did the family thing and all that is involved with that during the day, then flew the CDO getting, maybe, 4-5 hours of sleep. Rinse, repeat for days. The guy looked like death warmed over.

Former carrier of mine had a crew run a plane off the end of a runway at JFK and if I am remembering correctly, fatigue due to the CDO they were on was listed as a factor.

CDO's are fatiguing and unsafe imho. If dalpa signs off on bringing CDO's back to us I don't ever want to hear or read "Scheduling with Safety" again. It will be a hollow slogan.

To those that say something to the effect of "Well, we already do [insert type of trip] and it is fatiguing, so what is the big deal about cdo's?" That arguement holds no logic to me. Why add even more crap/fatiguing flying on top of what we already have? Why does the fact that we already do some fatiguing stuff mean it's ok to add more? I thought it was supposed to be about safety? And not to mention that it is nothing but a concession.

We just got 10 hour min. overnights via pt 117, and are now going to allow CDO's to be introduced? Seriously? May as well bring back reduced-rest overnights while we are at it. Makes just as much sense.

Somebody said this some pages back, but it seems we are allowing some of our work rules to morph towards regional rules. That is unacceptable.