Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-21-2014, 04:26 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
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?
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?
05-21-2014, 04:28 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2014
Posts: 463
Originally Posted by Spudhauler
At the risk of being repetitive, why are people suddenly all right using language like "it doesn't appear that" or "it's highly unlikely that" with regards to the company's plans with CDOs and augmented flights? If that is the case, put ironclad language into the TA so that there aren't giant holes the company can drive through. And as far as this fantasy that there are a bunch of pilots who want CDOs, show me some numbers. I've never been polled about it, nor have I ever heard one pilot express an interest in doing them. We have approximately 12000 pilots, so unless 6001 want them included in our contract, my belief is that they shouldn't even be a consideration.
05-21-2014, 04:28 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by EdGrimley
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.
05-21-2014, 04:35 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,228
Originally Posted by Check Essential
Sorry if that wasn't clear.
The 114 pilots is net. The $40 million is net.
They would not allow us guys who haven't signed NDAs to see the actual numbers on each side.
ie= the ADG might cost $500 million and the SDPs might save $460 million.
$40 mil net.
Same concept with the manning. Maybe 1114 pilots for the ADG minus 1000 for the SDPs.
net gain of 114 pilots.
I do not know the actual numbers. Only the net. $40 million and 114 pilots.
The 114 pilots is net. The $40 million is net.
They would not allow us guys who haven't signed NDAs to see the actual numbers on each side.
ie= the ADG might cost $500 million and the SDPs might save $460 million.
$40 mil net.
Same concept with the manning. Maybe 1114 pilots for the ADG minus 1000 for the SDPs.
net gain of 114 pilots.
I do not know the actual numbers. Only the net. $40 million and 114 pilots.
The CDO's alone are a NO from me.
Language in other areas (augmentation) need to be narrowed down too in an effort to prevent the "we don't think they would do that...." from biting us in the butt. I'm for waiting until the next contract openers and stop this mess from seeing the light of day.
05-21-2014, 04:36 PM
Straight QOL, homie
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Posts: 4,202
Originally Posted by Alan Shore
Only with the concurrence of the MEC Scheduling Committee, who works for the MEC Chairman,
05-21-2014, 04:37 PM
Straight QOL, homie
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Posts: 4,202
Originally Posted by Schwanker
This is ALPA's costing of this. I'm betting Ed and company (who actually build the schedules and know what they intend to do going forward) may have there own costing with much different results.
"We don't think they'll do that" is code for "bend over, we're getting schooled again."
05-21-2014, 04:39 PM
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,910
Originally Posted by sailingfun
Again follow the money. Allegiant pays pilots a lot less money and their HNL service is a mess. I believe Delta could have been flying Hawaii as turns since we flew the first 767 over. When it was a 3 man aircraft everything they could fly was a turn if they could schedule it. Maui turns went very senior. If they did not do it for the last 25 years I see no reason they will start.
If they did do them as turns it would be great for the LA pilots. A large copilot bid would have to be put out to handle the increased staffing and you would only have to work 7 or 8 days a month. On the occasions I could beg borrow or steal a Maui turn I loved it.
If they did do them as turns it would be great for the LA pilots. A large copilot bid would have to be put out to handle the increased staffing and you would only have to work 7 or 8 days a month. On the occasions I could beg borrow or steal a Maui turn I loved it.
Well then ................ that will obviously never happen.
Scoop
05-21-2014, 04:39 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,524
Originally Posted by Check Essential
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.
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.
Regarding the >14 for a leg though, are we 100% sure this applies to all legs? What if a leg departs ATL 11:00 from now, but the return leg departs STL 14:01 from now. How do we cover that return leg when there isn't a pilot there to originate? If a DH is built, suddenly that's less than 14 hours as well. Hmmm.
What about any return flight from an out station? Are we sure the outblund flight that's part of a reroute will become a WS/GS coverage trip on the way back? If so, how does the rerouted pilot get back? I have a hard time believing the company will DH a crew to get them while they DH back especially after what would have been legal rest. What about hub-to-non-hub-to-other-non-hub legs? It really seems like there will be legs that are known outside of 14 hours that never go through the coverage process.
If they are talking about originators from a hub, I wouldn't expect much attempt for pushing the limits and perhaps good software could monitor things. But I don't see strict adherence for non hub return flights. My guess is the company won't ever put that up for WS/GS and will always use the originally rerouted pilots and if we grieve it they will claim that was the intent all along and it would be unreasonable to expect every single >14 leg to go out to the slip system especially when that would generate additional double crew DH credits.
05-21-2014, 04:42 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2014
Posts: 463
Originally Posted by RonRicco
Not exactly.. All that has to happen is the open time has to go through trip coverage. Now, say you do the typical Atl reroute because your inbound is late, they can keep you rerouted the whole time because none of that stuff was "known" more than 14 hours.
And then of course you get into "when was it known." We get rerouted at least once a trip these days, are we gonna investigate every aspect of every reroute to see when it was "known?" Really?
It is the CDO abomination (and how we ended up with it in the first place) that has my feathers ruffled. I can't believe reps are actually using the excuse that "guys don't sleep on international either" as an excuse to add another pos to our contract?
And then of course you get into "when was it known." We get rerouted at least once a trip these days, are we gonna investigate every aspect of every reroute to see when it was "known?" Really?
It is the CDO abomination (and how we ended up with it in the first place) that has my feathers ruffled. I can't believe reps are actually using the excuse that "guys don't sleep on international either" as an excuse to add another pos to our contract?
05-21-2014, 04:43 PM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
That's great...until we get another Moak for MEC Chairman.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
