Ditto on thanking CE, and I agree that the part in bold is one of two very important keys to the SDP's. They don't exit in a vacuum. We as a group need to really, really understand:

1) How the SDP's will feel to those that actually fly them, voluntarily and involuntarily.
2) How the transfer of SDP's out of other rotations affect those that don't fly SDP's at all.

Whether you fly SDP's or not, everyone is going to be affected by them. Wouldn't it be nice to understand how?

If that's the case and there are so few routes the company wants to use them on, codify the specific legs instead of an open ended agreement. What would be wrong with that? Why would the company not agree to it if it's just a handful of routes out of NRT and Haneda?

I'm concerned about how the CDO's are distributed. Without strict language preventing it, I have to assume they will be built soely at the whim of the company and put into the bid package as loose trips. That means line holders that don't want them will end up getting them as well as perhaps a significant number going to reserves.

I would have liked to have seen hard lines built out of any of these the company wanted to do. That way whoever did them would be on the same circadian schedule for the entire month. I'd also like to see hotels in domicile as a safety benefit for commuters and locals alike. That would leave the occasional stray CDO for reserves, which I'd like to see additional recovery protections for rest since we're essentially gutting our late report contractual protections and basically flying to the FAR's in order to enable this in the first place. Like once you get back as a reserve, you can't get anything until 10am the following day, etc.

But it doesn't appear we have anything like that. It looks like its going to be total company discretion, trips scattered however they wish with mixed lines with constantly reversing circadian cycles and no additional protections.

We've been through this. Using other fatigue inducing examples does not justify adding more. But you knew that. By all means continue pushing your agenda with weak arguments though.

That [should] also depend on any feedback they get from now until they have to decide. Whatever one's views are on this, they need to be sent up the chain.

That's frustrating that the most important aspect of it was briefed in closed session. That's where the rub for me is and what we really need to know.

That was the subject of a pretty long discussion.
Right now we basically have no rules. Crew tracking can take any broken trip that comes up and run it as a reroute or send it over to crew scheduling as a "Will need pilot to cover" and then skeds put it through the trip coverage ladder.

Under this new rule any leg that comes open for any reason and is scheduled to push back in greater than 14 hours will have to go through the Section 23 coverage ladder.
This is theoretically going to reduce the number of reroutes substantially.

Scrappy expressed significant confidence the MEC will be able to monitor that process for compliance. New programming will be put in place.

Some of this stuff got pretty complex though and I may not be exactly correct. The reps were asking a lot of tough questions about this section and they really seemed to be well versed.

In order of priority, I would like to see this TA:

1) Held back until the pilots are polled;
2) Sent to the membership for ratification, to at least get validation that my fellow pilots, who never, ever seem to mention their intense yearning for SDP's can come halfway out of the closet and vote them in. It'll still be their secret, but we'll all be forced to respect the outcome;
3) Passed with a negotiated sunset provision, i.e. we agree to SDP's for a period of one year, and if the MEC doesn't make them permanent by mutal agreement with the company, we revert back to the status quo.

If this is such a pilot-friendly deal, surely a test-drive will convince us?

PRECISELY! If it's such a small amount of these let's codify which ones then as a pilot group vote on it. If the company is saying they only intend to use them for a few situations the NC would be fairly stupid for not asking to specify those routes and those routes alone.

Pork steaks.. on the grill. I roasted a couple of peppers and onions, steamed some broccoli.. a nice salad with Italian dressing... not too much. And a glass or two off two buck Chuck. Burn Notice marathon on ion...


And I'm back here because I find this driving my BP thru the roof.

I want to hear from the (apparently) silent majority that thinks this will be a good deal for all of us.

Buehler? Anybody?