No, I mean the logic that SDPs or CDOs are comparable to SA flying in terms of the fatigue potential. Way different animals.

Reserve rules...
 

Anyone know offhand whether this change affects report time on first day of reserve availability? I haven't unwrapped the legal-speak yet and like the noon start on first day back for commuting purposes but can't believe it's not a target.
Thanks.

It means that "your way" didn't do anything for anyone at NWA. Best case, they got a check for $100 or $200 for a contract violation. It's not enough to grieve everything, go to litigation, and call that a "result."

"Scared" is telling the negotiators to look for a way to get SDPs back, and then running away when the idiots they have been spoon-feeding for five years started to freak out.

I'm not mischaracterizing anyone. You want Lloyd Hill APA BS tactics on our property, and I'm telling you they won't work.

I have put money in our pockets. All you have done is run your mouth.

And you don't care. It's like waving a torch in front of Frankenstein.

Yes.

It is no fun being lied about and having your integrity questioned.

Hate is too strong a word. But, I will go as far as to say your invective has not added any objective information to this discussion. You just make it about you.

You had made friends here among several of the mods. Then following DPA talking points, you attacked them, lied about them, recently called for the loss of one of their positions where they tirelessly serve the Delta pilots. Your failure, as a person, is to put talking points above your own personal friendships, relationships with co-workers and professionalism. I believe you owe these people an apology.

Going forward you should behave as if you are in a room among friends, co-workers and professionals ... because you are.

Your going after XXXX was the last straw for me. He is a good friend. Since my best friend was killed by Gulfstream ... those two circles roughly intersect at one point.

Since you like talking about my friends, lets talk about something you know something about for a change.

Thank you very much, CE. I think you're right about having that discussion.

I think one answer is obviously that when our reps were engaged in discussions about CDO's since October, there needed to be a discussion within each council. Ed Grimley had a good post about a protocol we should be following (with some small changes), and I strongly agree that we need to have some sort of predictable procedure, in which pilot input is validated upfront, and throughout the process.

The MEC failed to anticipate our reaction to SDP's, and they failed for the simple reason they never floated the idea to the group. It seems to me that they actually genuinely believed that these were a good solution, but that was based mostly on the input from guys begging for them. In other words, if there was a better protocol for developing smaller LOA's, that would mirror Section 6, with polling, they've totally failed to follow the most basic steps. Informal e-mails from a few guys lobbying for specific (and obscure) items does NOT represent "input from the council".

We have to help them clean this up. The way to fix this is to get them to apply the Section 6 process to more LOA's, and get the policy manual re-written to get more automatic MEMRAT. In this case, we got to sufficient pilot input, but in an ugly, convoluted way. Although Donatelli was off on his analysis of the TA, he gave us the synopsis with just enough time to make our voices heard. At the end, the offensive section was identified and removed.

There must be a better way. You can't grossly muck up the first several steps of the process, totally fail at getting pilot input, then hide behind a vote for MEMRAT, after a unanimous vote for the TA. It's so grotesque an argument that so far, none of the reps have tried. We know from experience that most, if not all, TA's that are endorsed by the MEC are ratified by the group. A TA endorsed universally is even more likely to pass.

Which is why we must go back to basics, and have a better feedback loop that involves pilot input by design, not by accident.

This is from the C1 update sent this morning.

The tentative agreement reached last week by the negotiators met the direction the MEC had provided to them over the course of multiple meetings, including a “mid-course adjustment” two months ago. During the 7-day review period required by the MEC Policy Manual, it became apparent that the modeling and assumptions regarding Split Duty Period (SDP) flying (aka “CDOs”, “Illegals”, “Stand-ups”) was not what we envisioned when we gave direction to the negotiating committee several months ago. Also, your feedback during the last week solidified our view that the addition of SDPs was not in the best interest of Delta pilots. It’s important to note that the 7-day review period was established to allow exactly this type of reassessment.

After a line-by-line dissection of the agreement on Wednesday, and following a vigorous discussion on Thursday, the MEC called an audible, and directed the negotiators to seek modifications that would eliminate SDPs. That effort was successful, and the new agreement was presented to us for approval.

Don't sweat Carl, Bar. He only gets offensive when he has nothing. He joined the discussion late, got a little equity by attacking the SDP's he'll never have to fly, and he started into the politics right afterwards. Most of APC is talking about solving problems, he's here to deflect blame, and obscure the issue.

The issue is that reps thought we'd like the SDP's, but made the basic mistake of not validating that before it got to a vote. That's the bad news. The good news is that pilots saw the value of their involvement, and reps saw the dangers of straying too far without consultation. They did a good job staying right on top of the NC, but forgot to make sure we could stay right on top of the discussion.

There is a lot we need to talk about, and I'm looking forward to moving beyond merger politics.

SUBJECT:

Reinstatement of Illegals

SOURCE:

Council 20

BACKGROUND:

Single duty period overnight turn rotations are no longer being constructed since all DAL-N fleets have transitioned to the DAL PBS system. These rotations were previously senior trips and highly sought after by especially those who lived in base. As a result, many rotations now include 30+ hour layovers in cities that were previously destinations for these single duty period short overnights. Examples are of these layover cities are MSN, GRR, RAP, FSD, etc. These new long layovers are very unpopular and unproductive especially relative to the previous way that these rotations were constructed.

The following resolution was passed at a recent Council 20 LEC meeting
​Maker: Mavrick
Second: Goose
Passed: Unanimous

BE IT RESOLVED the pilots of Delta Council 20 direct our LEC Officers to present the following resolution to the Delta MEC at the 1st Quarter (March) 2010 MEC meeting.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION:

WHEREAS the single duty period overnight rotations, more commonly known as “illegals,” were very popular with the most senior pilots who live in base, and

WHEREAS these “illegal” rotations are very cost effective and eliminated the need for 30+ hour domestic layovers in many locations with minimal service, and

WHEREAS “Illegal” rotations are flown by all the other majormainline carriers,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the Delta MEC directs the Negotiating Committee and Scheduling Committee to use any resources necessary to provide for the construction and reinstatement of single duty period short overnight rotations for domestic pilots, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the MEC directs the Scheduling Committee to work with the Company to build and return “illegals” back to the monthly bid packages.

Bar,

You've already tried this argument, and it's just as useless as Carl's stuff.

Everyone understands where these originated. The N had experience with them, and we didn't, that's all. It doesn't have any particular meaning that these were initially pushed by N councils. On a political level, it makes it impossible for those councils to distance themselves from their inclusion (so Carl is screwed there), but on a pilot group level, this sort of argument is going to make N pilots feel like S pilots are blaming them for SDP's, which is not the case.

The entire MEC agreed, as a body, to have them part of negotiations, otherwise we wouldn't have seen them. The MEC owns them, so let's not accidentally get into NvS stuff while trying to address Carl's circus of merger politics.

Look at the date of that thing. Took them 4 years to spring it on us...

Maybe next LOA they'll bring compass in house in reference to our 2009 resolution. ;)