Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-27-2014 | 11:10 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
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
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
If so it didn't take long to poke SWA in the eye with their 717s.
05-27-2014 | 11:13 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
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
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
I was talking to someone about it and they brought up a question, would these 7.30 trips have replaced 10.5 hour two days?
05-27-2014 | 11:24 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
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.
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.
05-27-2014 | 11:34 AM
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 972
Likes: 1
From: 7ERA
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
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
05-27-2014 | 11:38 AM
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
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
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
05-27-2014 | 11:50 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
From: 73
Quick Q: Is there any other way to travel on our JV partners than simply buying an eZed? On travel net, all those flights with JV partner legs have non-selectable radio heads.
Do we get any preferential boarding on JV partners as Delta employees or is standard eZed with the masses the only way to go?
Gracias!
Humboldt
Do we get any preferential boarding on JV partners as Delta employees or is standard eZed with the masses the only way to go?
Gracias!
Humboldt
05-27-2014 | 11:57 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,299
Likes: 0
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.
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.
With your GS, you'll get 9:27 GS pay in May and the rest in June. The specifics of the GS depend on whether you are reserve or regular.
05-27-2014 | 12:00 PM
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
I'm still a little bit in the fog as to the CDO incident. The mere fact that it was pulled begs the question as to why it was there in the first place and the language (and protections) not seen. I'm still trying to figure out those two things.
This kind of change to work rules and operations seemed to me to be as big as any contract TA would be. Whether it went to memory rat or not I think the language deserved time to review.
And that's what confuses me. I think for most who signed a DPA card it was more about DALPA having a conflict of interest or being self serving and secretive and that maybe there needed to be a change. But over the last year it's really died down as the DPA shot itself in the foot on occasion and then you had elections at DALPA, followed by a recall, followed by new people. I think for those of us who filled out a DPA card there is a willingness to give DALPA the benefit of the doubt moving forward.
So what I don't get is if DALPA wanted to finally rid itself of the DPA why go this route on this kind of TA at this time? Not publishing the language is secretive, publishing it is not secretive. And why didn't they understand there would be an uproar about CDOs even if some pilots really demanded it?
This kind of change to work rules and operations seemed to me to be as big as any contract TA would be. Whether it went to memory rat or not I think the language deserved time to review.
And that's what confuses me. I think for most who signed a DPA card it was more about DALPA having a conflict of interest or being self serving and secretive and that maybe there needed to be a change. But over the last year it's really died down as the DPA shot itself in the foot on occasion and then you had elections at DALPA, followed by a recall, followed by new people. I think for those of us who filled out a DPA card there is a willingness to give DALPA the benefit of the doubt moving forward.
So what I don't get is if DALPA wanted to finally rid itself of the DPA why go this route on this kind of TA at this time? Not publishing the language is secretive, publishing it is not secretive. And why didn't they understand there would be an uproar about CDOs even if some pilots really demanded it?
I suggest those with a concern about memrat first address the policy manual and change it through resolution, if change is desired. Otherwise accept that your rep is going to do his or her job.
The reps can send an agreement to memrat and were going to if CDOs were in there. If that would have happened, it would have been a rare exception to how the MEC usually goes about it's business.
As for the negotiations, they were a bit unusual due to their scope. This was certainly one of the largest agreements ever reached outside of formal Section 6 negotiations. But since it was not Section 6 some of the polling and surveys were not budgeted or completed.
I thought the MEC functioned very well. A side effect of a more open, transparent and inclusive MEC is the occassional glimpse of the untidy side of sausage making. But the payoff of having the MEC respond quickly to pilot input is terrific, IMHO.
Again, if there are suggestions for improvements, lets discuss them and improve the policy manual that provides guidance.
05-27-2014 | 12:05 PM
Runs with scissors
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,847
Likes: 0
From: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Wayyy off topic here, but does anyone know what the American Airlines 777 Capt. pay rate is now, and next year?
A friend of a friend asked me, but I can't find it listed here on APC.
Anyone who knows for sure, please shoot me a PM. Thanks.
A friend of a friend asked me, but I can't find it listed here on APC.
Anyone who knows for sure, please shoot me a PM. Thanks.
05-27-2014 | 12:14 PM
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 851
Likes: 0
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
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
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
