Originally Posted by DAWGS (Post 1650729)

Read your own posts! Why post a resolution from years ago? I'm a former south guy and all this nonsense about DTW is deflection from where the responsibility lies. Last time I checked DTW alone doesn't decide the direction of the NC, since that is where you are suggesting the push for CDOs came from. I know nothing of this KW issue you keep blowing up on this forum. You are the one being divisive right now bringing this to light and making it a NvS issue. That is all noise that is confusing responsibility.

My point is this is as much a failure of council 44, 20 etc as any other council. I have no agenda other than to shoot down all the political BS, run for cover, blame nonsense I see this morphing into rather than really finding out who decided these ridiculous CDOs were good for Delta Pilots as a whole. This single issue had the most potential to destroy a safe culture and QOL more so than any issue since I have been at Delta. I see fingerprints all over this thing including ATL reps who defended it to me personally over a month ago. This is vintage top down IMO. We deserve much better than what just happened.

Bar you are guilty of what you have accused so many of in the past. If you don't see that, I can't help you.

Originally Posted by Alan Shore (Post 1650450)

I think he's saying that, under the old system he commutes to base during the first 2 hours of his short call, and can commute home 10 hours later. Under the new system, he must wait 12 hours after he commutes in to commute home.

On the flip side, he'll get 2 more hours notice to set up the commute, assuming the last-minute assignment to short call.

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1650747)

I do like the ADG and think it will be a net line item win for us, although I'm sure we'll see a few unintended consequences in future bid packets as they company prioritizes not paying it through soft credit.

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1650747)

I also like the fNWA longevity fix. While it won't apply to 90%+ fNWA pilots in terms of pay since almost all are max scale anyway it was still the right thing to do and will occasionally get someone into the next vacation/sick accrual bucket a couple months sooner.

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1650747)

As for the costing of this, I can't figure out how our guys cost out something that they don't know and can't control, but the company knows and does control. CDO's as well as augmented domestic in all its forms is a function of how many, if any, the company decides to do, and they can change at any time. How do we put a fixed cost on that in the first place?

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1650747)

In any case the whole thing was a reserve crisis requiring a reserve solution and was a huge opportunity to significantly increase reserve QOL while simultaneously driving up manning requirements. But instead most of the gains went to other areas...

Originally Posted by GunshipGuy (Post 1650785)

I am of the same opinion: The old rules were better for reserve commuters who are on narrowbody aircraft.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1650782)

How do we learn from this and what do we learn from this? We can't recall everyone...even though right now that's what is deserved here. This is every bit as political, disorganized and unprofessional as the recent recall of the MEC chairman.

Originally Posted by Check Essential (Post 1650734)

Regarding the MECs vote against memrat.

This TA had several quirks in the surrounding circumstances.

Here's just one:

a little memory rat brain teaser.

Let's say this TA went to memrat. Would you demand to know if the personal drop pilots were protected and made whole? Would you vote for the TA if they were not?

Ok. So let's say they were protected. In writing.
Let's say memrat happens extremely fast. It takes 30 days. (more realistically 45 or 60)

What could possibly go wrong?

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1650747)

Two votes versus one, you're right.

I do like the ADG and think it will be a net line item win for us, although I'm sure we'll see a few unintended consequences in future bid packets as they company prioritizes not paying it through soft credit.

The 330 rest is also an improvement. Does this bring it back to what it had before? I can't blame our reps for that one, as the arbitrator was on the company's side on that and was just "legislating from the bench" when they just took it away in the first place. So I'm glad that's back.

I also like the fNWA longevity fix. While it won't apply to 90%+ fNWA pilots in terms of pay since almost all are max scale anyway it was still the right thing to do and will occasionally get someone into the next vacation/sick accrual bucket a couple months sooner.

I just don't get why when this entire negotiations, which was triggered by significant leverage WRT reserve notification, wasn't used to increase the long call leash and I really can't believe that for day one reports we said "we see your Steve Dickson memo, and raise you two hours earlier!" :eek:

While I'm not categorically against CDO's (SDP's, whatever) I wasn't crazy about the language in this particular proposal. 2 hours is just too long for these IMO for the worst case on the ground times. I would have preferred 1:30 or less. Also I thought it was this section that mandated the "fly to the FAR's" for duty periods, but the revised email still has this language in it. What exactly does that mean at this point? We didn't give up all the extra buffer time we had for regular pairings did we?

As for the costing of this, I can't figure out how our guys cost out something that they don't know and can't control, but the company knows and does control. CDO's as well as augmented domestic in all its forms is a function of how many, if any, the company decides to do, and they can change at any time. How do we put a fixed cost on that in the first place?

Especially the reported 2million cost differential between the original and revised TA's that was based primarilly on CDO's not being a part of the new one. So 2 million cost for something we had no idea how many they'd do or when they'd do them?

In any case the whole thing was a reserve crisis requiring a reserve solution and was a huge opportunity to significantly increase reserve QOL while simultaneously driving up manning requirements. But instead most of the gains went to other areas and we even lowballed the company's own unilateral short call memo to help fund other things. Long call only gained an hour, but with the interesting and potentially nefarious down the road precident shattering concept of automatic, instantaneous notification merely upon first attempted contact :eek: but then we gave that hour back anyway just to undo something else we originally included that had nothing directly to do with the reserve issues in question.

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1650770)

It wouldn't have if you'd just posted the resolution to show that this wasn't something that the MEC came up with on their own. Instead you wrestled with the pig a little too long. I'm pretty good at that....

You've every right, and in my view a responsibility, to defend your friends with the facts. Sometimes those facts make people uncomfortable - they cause them to be accountable. Pandering populism fades when confronted with the facts. It's not a N-S thing when you show the facts.

Fact: C20 forwarded a resolution to the MEC unanimously passed by their membership. That resolution was done prior to the 1Q 2010 MEC meeting. The MEC took no action on it due to upcoming FAR changes. (source 2010 C20 resolution posted here).

Fact: The MEC directed the negotiating committee to negotiate the inclusion of SDP in this FAR 117 agreement (source C1 update posted here).

Opinion: The people active on various webboards were surprised by the inclusion of SDP in the agreement and reacted very negatively to their inclusion.

Opinion: I find it interesting that in their post meeting update C20 would write[/FONT][/COLOR]when one of the members of C20 was at the table for both the 2010 resolution and 2014 negotiator direction. Absent the C20 input, moved and seconded by Councils 1 and 108 at the MEC meeting, there was no other push for "illegals" of which I'm aware.[/SIZE][/FONT]

There's nothing "N vs S" in those facts. And we wouldn't have been discussing SDP without the concurrence of the Delta MEC.

You've got to wonder why there's not a similar level of outrage over the cross council recall efforts, though. Makes some of the protests here ring hollow, imo.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1650741)

OK. Reps from all Councils, but one, have accepted responsibility for direction. *

Who's deflecting?

And why are you blaming me for that?

In fact, if you will re-read my posts ... I've been the one saying we need to give the idea proper consideration. The D-MEC is going to do scheduling surveys ... count on it.

* and that's a damn candid thing for reps to do.