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?

 

Very well said! Think back to the number of times these things end up going in the pilots favor? They end up much different than what was discussed in negotiations or even sold by the NC/MEC. The company can and will exploit these open ended, poorly written agreements on line at a time. Then we can say "didn't see that coming" and "we'll get em next time"....when the company has what they want and is no longer interested in "constructive engagement".

 

Hear hear!...

 

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. I believe they are extremely good at what they do and their best interests don't align with ours with respect to this.

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.