Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1652434)

New SEA service announced, mainline routes to MEX and Maui.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1652434)

New SEA service announced, mainline routes to MEX and Maui.

Originally Posted by georgetg (Post 1652472)

Yup, good to see some more 757 routes being added.
We also did cancel the planned 717/RJ Houston expansion due to lack of gates...

cancelled:

CXL HOU-DTW (3 daily were planned)
CXL HOU-LAX (5 daily were planned)
CXL HOU-LGA (g daily were planned)
CXL HOU-MSP (3 daily were planned)

we do keep the additional 6th daily HOU-ATL

Cheers
George

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1652469)

The entire duty period would have paid 7:30.

The "credit" would have been based on the 1:2 and 1:1.75 rig. The pay only would have been the difference between that and 7:30.

For reserves the "pay" would have gone above Res. Guar. Which would have been sweet for reserves...

I'm still in the camp that we should allow them, but with a little bit tighter rules...

1:30 block each way
5:30 min scheduled break
4:30 behind the door
8:00 pay per period
"Day room" hotel in between SDP's

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1652386)

Hmmm, flamebait. Ironic.



Which is why I didn't call because my guys would have felt obligated to call back. I wanted them to enjoy a few days peace.

Anyway, had a good conversation with my rep today. Here's a quick synopsis:

1. CDO's originated from a special select sub committee of the scheduling committee, not a 4 year old defeated LEC resolution. The subcommittee inserted CDO's into the negotiating wish list. Reps found out about CDO's during their initial meetings to give direction. The reps' direction included strict limitations and provisions to any CDO's. the TA did not include those limits. Reps that were upset about their guidance being ignored were bolstered by a nearly record flood of angry emails and calls. After initially fighting the MEC, the NC went back to the company and made the changes.

2. No mention of a pay no credit lookback between now and November.

3. MEC nearly equally split on need for MEMRAT. interesting that its a philosophical split and not a split along north/south.

4. Acknowledgement that given the volumes of MEC communication, pilots were not communicated with regarding what was being negotiated.

5. The logic as to how CDO's became part of 117 (fatigue regulations) negotiations was because CDO's are covered in FAR 117. This was the open door used by the scheduling subcommittee to insert them into our opening position.

6. Company considered CDO's to be zero cost. Yet when we returned to ask for removal of them, the company gave their removal from the already signed TA to cost $4 million. So the loss of one hour to the long call leash and other stuff was determined by the company to be required to make them whole for their new additional cost of 4 million to remove CDO's that were a zero cost item when negotiations began.

Lots more stuff but this is already too long. MEC still very divided philosophically between guys like the CVG chairman who openly stated: 'we don't need MEMRAT because pilots don't have the time or the knowledge capacity to understand this stuff. That's why they hire us' ... and guys who believe just the opposite. No changes to that seen anytime soon

Carl

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1652386)

Hmmm, flamebait. Ironic.



Which is why I didn't call because my guys would have felt obligated to call back. I wanted them to enjoy a few days peace.

Anyway, had a good conversation with my rep today. Here's a quick synopsis:

1. CDO's originated from a special select sub committee of the scheduling committee, not a 4 year old defeated LEC resolution. The subcommittee inserted CDO's into the negotiating wish list. Reps found out about CDO's during their initial meetings to give direction. The reps' direction included strict limitations and provisions to any CDO's. the TA did not include those limits. Reps that were upset about their guidance being ignored were bolstered by a nearly record flood of angry emails and calls. After initially fighting the MEC, the NC went back to the company and made the changes.

2. No mention of a pay no credit lookback between now and November.

3. MEC nearly equally split on need for MEMRAT. interesting that its a philosophical split and not a split along north/south.

4. Acknowledgement that given the volumes of MEC communication, pilots were not communicated with regarding what was being negotiated.

5. The logic as to how CDO's became part of 117 (fatigue regulations) negotiations was because CDO's are covered in FAR 117. This was the open door used by the scheduling subcommittee to insert them into our opening position.

6. Company considered CDO's to be zero cost. Yet when we returned to ask for removal of them, the company gave their removal from the already signed TA to cost $4 million. So the loss of one hour to the long call leash and other stuff was determined by the company to be required to make them whole for their new additional cost of 4 million to remove CDO's that were a zero cost item when negotiations began.

Lots more stuff but this is already too long. MEC still very divided philosophically between guys like the CVG chairman who openly stated: 'we don't need MEMRAT because pilots don't have the time or the knowledge capacity to understand this stuff. That's why they hire us' ... and guys who believe just the opposite. No changes to that seen anytime soon

Carl

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1652501)

I'm going through Section 23 of the PWA when it comes to carry out GS trips. I'm trying to figure out how the pay works. The 4-day trip in particular that was thinking about has 9.27 of credit in this month and the remaining 13+ hours in next month (at least according to the bid packages).

So is it 9.27 on GS in May and 13+ in June? Someone mentioned that you could ask to move all of the hours to the originating month but I don't see that in the PWA.