hockeypilot44

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.

qball

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?

GogglesPisano

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

Sink r8

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?

Schwanker

You're post was the first I saw it. When you were laughed at, I felt relief that I wasn't the only who thought NO F'N WAY. Well it's now a real possibility.

As far as paying attention, I guessed I missed the Vectors or whatever distribution method was used for my reps to relay this to me. Very disappointed.

iaflyer

I understand how the company doesn't want to pay ADG for a 30 hr layover. And I understand how guys want more efficient trips. I wish that in the discussion about being more efficient SDP had been mentioned other than showing up in the Chairman's letter.

How about a "hey, if you want no 30 hr layover, SDPs are the solution." Then the pilot group could have a discussion about whether it's a good idea or not. Now, how it's going to be presented is "we traded 5:15 ADG for SDP - ADG affects the whole pilot group while SDP are just a small subset of trips, and most people won't them anyway."

I just think that SDP are a bad idea, fatiguing and while legal, far from safe. It's enough that I think the TA should be shot down and we can all discuss it in Sec 6.

tsquare

Then I want the MEC to sign a paper telling all of us... once the contract is signed of course, that this option will NEVER be used. Appearance my a$$. We are handing the company another issue we will have to fight against in section 6.




$40 million is chump change. The dividend increase alone is way more than that, and that doesn't even address the $2Billion share repurchase. You are biting on a rotten peach my friend.

• Quote:

  Originally Posted by shiznit

  Eliminates the 2200-2359 ADG carveout
  Good. But I'll bet all those rotations will change.

• Quote:

  Originally Posted by shiznit

  The increase in staffing is around 120 pilots also, which offsets almost every staffing "efficiency" granted to the Company in C2012.
  We are hiring 50/month for forever. This is minutae that will get lost in the fog. NOBODY, especially the company, will even notice this. It is a ridiculous selling point

• Quote:

  Originally Posted by shiznit

  First day on reserve minimum report is no earlier than 1000.
  This is better than noon? How is that again? Commuters take it in the shorts yet again.

• Quote:

  Originally Posted by shiznit

  ALPA gets to appoint two of the four members on the Fatigue Risk Management Team that will decide on suitability of fatigue programs to the FAA.

So we have the ability to perform a late term abortion? Really? puhleeeeeez. This camel gets in the tent, and it's here to stay. We'll get pressured for 2+15 in section 6, and this is nowhere near enough money for this thing as it is.

The bigger issue is that this is going to be such a lightning rod that if it DOESN'T go to memory rat, the doughnut holes are gonna get another shot in the arm. It is MORONIC beyond comprehension to force this without it.

hockeypilot44

You didn't miss anything. Nothing was ever put in writing. It was talked about though by a lot of individuals in the know.

FmrFreightDog

Everyone here needs to reread this... twice.

CGfalconHerc

Exactly! The first time I heard "CDO" or "split duty" was on this board after the TA bullet points were published. I thought "what the F are they talking about"?

If the TA said the company wants "stand ups" in return for 5:15 a day, the majority of South guys would say "NO F'IN WAY"!!

The MEC should have at least told us what was in the works so those without inside Intel could offer our perspective.

Shoving this down our throats is a huge mistake!