Its not a lie at least not according to MEC resolutions. There has been a resolution posted on the alternate forum showing the DTW guys wanted negotiations to pursue getting these back. I would suspect that other north guys wanted these as well. These were extremely popular and senior for the most part on the DC9. However has been pointed out that was pre 9-11 when you went DTW to FNT or MSP to RST. Going more than 1+30 block is a different story.

I have previously stated I liked CDOs but only the short ones. I do not want to do MSP to MSO as a CDO. However I would be willing to forgo CDOs in this agreement until the MEC has done some more or any polling.

newK

THey also took 5 day trips…so we've got that going for us.

 

PM inbound

 

What about no greater than 1+15 flight time each way with a non reducible 6hrs at the hotel. The current language is a no from me.

 

No rush? I just found out about these CDO's in the last few days and we're voting on this today---without the final language available. If this wasn't rushed, then it's been deceptively negotiated as this is quite alarming to many.

 

^^^^^Thank you.^^^^^ What in the what are they thinking???? Why does our representation keep looking for and finding ways to GIVE???? Did the company view bankruptcy that way--did they say, "OK, we're getting 47% in pay cuts and for that we're giving ADG of 9:00hr."? No, from my understanding it was: "The company is hurting huh? Well, here take 47% of our pay." Sure, not quite that simple, but you get the gist. So if negotiations can work that way during bad times why can't it work that way during good times? Why do our professional "negotiators" keep finding ways to give concessions? Reps have been written and have my $0.02.

 

A lot of us was blindsided by this.

 

You should pay more attention. I heard a rumor about CDO's being negotiated a month ago. I didn't believe it. A few weeks ago I heard it from 2 different reliable sources. Once I believed it, I posted on here to only get insulted and laughed at.

 

I'm thinking the proposed SDP's will nullify a good deal of the 5:15 credit trips and allow the company to schedule trip with far less credit time. I don't think the 5:15 bump will be as great as it is being presented. I just don't think it's worth bringing SDP's in to the mix...I think there will be lots of them (on several fleets) and the proposed language is far too loose. Thoughts?

 

The rumors were about as reliable as the 4/8/3/3 rumors a few years back .... oh, wait ...

 

That's the version I got from two excellent sources. The product that was delivered by the NC is the product that the MEC asked them to purchase. Some reps are going to try to back-pedal on this, but there isn't one sitting rep that didn't approve and re-direct at least twice.

Look for a political sideshow to develop, where people try to decline ownership, or work both sides of the game. Typical crap. But it's not that important. The issue, if you will, is that the reps did not get any structured input (i.e. surveys) on SDP's/CDO's. So how did we get here?

Well, to my surprise, there is a pro-CDO segment among us, and there is some logic to it. C20 even brought a resolution to the MEC requiring them to negotiate them back in, in 2010, to make the trips more efficient.

While I have never heard anyone ask for CDO's, I certainly have heard from most people that they want more efficient trips. If you think about it, many guys dislike sitting 30 hours in GRR, but the company isn't building those rotations with a couple hours of credit because they want to; they're building 30-hour layovers because they have to, especially under 117. Imagine the leverage it would take to get 5:15 ADG applied to an entire day of doing nothing. This is why the conversation turned to SDP's/CDO's. It was a collective hug between every pilot wanting better trips, the sub-group that actually likes CDO's, and the company that's willing to pay a higher ADG, but not a free day on these rotations.

If you see that 30-hour layovers are essentially the piece of the puzzle stopping an increase in ADG, and you also understand that those exist precisely because the company cannot schedule these trips more efficiently (otherwise they would), then you can see how SDP's came into the picture, with the knowledge and consent of the MEC.

Well, the problem you have is that "C" is something totally unexpected for many of us, and it's a drastic change in the way we do business. The MEC certainly failed to communicate that SDP's were even part of the discussion. Except for the people and councils actually lobbying for them, many of us didn't know they were on the table.

This is why MEMRAT is a must. I'm OK with not giving my consent on the front-end of a negotiation, but I must be given the right to endorse the end result. It's very simple.

What must be understood is that the deal might very well be satisfactory to the group. There may be a much larger contingent that want them, or is willing to see them as the price for a higher ADG . But there is also a strange confluence of opinions against SDP's, even between people as different as Carl, 88 Driver, Tsquare, PG, and myself. Carl will never fly one, but he's probably interested in the politics. 88 Driver and I will most likely fly them. I don't know about him, but they would be horrible for me. I can't safely do one, plus the drive home. I'd have to get a hotel each time, and destroy my sleep cycle, and time with the family. I don't ever want to fly them, and I don't really want others to be forced to fly them.

Guys who live really close-in, and guys who have a crashpad actually might be all over a string of SDP's. Imagine a really late sign-in, where you nap on the commute, and nap at your crashpad between consecutive SDP's. Nap on your (very early) commute home. Super-efficient, and if your sleep habits are compatible, potentially safe.

Since we haven't been given a chance to debate this, we now should determine, as a group, whether we think this TA is worth it. I'm not pre-judging the will of the pilot group, but I want to vote on this important TA. What's more basic and fair than letting me (and you) have that option?