ALPA watch. Sounds like that would be as frustrating as getting a straight answer from Eric Holder regarding any of the "ongoing (and going and going) investigations." :D

Here it is Alan:

--------------------------

Crew Tracking Interaction during FDP Extensions

We’ve received intermittent reports from Detroit pilots (as well as pilots from other bases) that interactions with Crew Tracking, when dealing with flight duty period (FDP) issues, have become somewhat “aggressive”, and are requiring pilots to justify their actions with the OCC Duty Pilot or other personnel.

We remind you that, as per the changes made to the PWA in LOA 14-01, ANY extension to the FDP requires the concurrence of ALL pilots scheduled to fly the particular leg, not just the PIC!

If you are in a situation where an FDP extension is required to complete the flight, but you are within your PWA duty period (< max scheduled + 2 hrs), you are required to conduct a “fitness for duty” check. If you, or anyone on the crew, determines that they are not fit for duty, you have a responsibility to not concur with the extension, and you should so notify Crew Tracking.

“Not fit to continue” is NOT the same as a fatigue call. You are NOT required to say you are fatigued to refuse an FDP extension, only that you are “not fit to continue” or some other equivalent statement.

You are not required to inform or discuss the situation with any party other than Crew Tracking or Dispatch at the point the choice not to extend is made (and that discussion should really be limited to not concurring to an extension because you don’t feel fit for duty). OCC Duty Pilots are NOT in the “chain of command” and are only considered “facilitators”; they are not empowered to discuss FAR 117 fitness requirements or pay implications.

If you are in a position where Crew Tracking insists that that you speak to another party, or declare you are fatigued, simply inform them that you are not required to do so, that you are not fit to continue, and you’ll be happy to discuss any required clarification with your base Chief Pilot AFTER your designated FAR rest period. Note that your FAR rest period does not begin until your company tasks (including any interaction with Crew Tracking) are concluded.

If you have exceeded your max actual PWA duty day, which is the maximum scheduled duty plus two hours (scheduled / max scheduled duty day is located in the upper right of the rotation display), you are not required to provide any reason to Crew Tracking. You have completed your contractual obligation. This provision will apply until the implementation of the FDP duty tables and the other PWA parameters from LOA 14-01, as well as the 5:15 ADG (Average Daily Guarantee), become effective NLT the November 2014 bid period.

If you have encountered any of the situations with Crew Tracking described above, or any other situation that you believe could be classified as “pilot pushing”, please inform one of us as soon as possible, and file an ASAP report.

-------------------------

Carl

I don't agree.

I've received my fair share of infractions (right 80kts?), :) but can honestly say I deserved each one. (Have probably deserved even more.) :eek:

So, I think if Drank was around, he'd probably "own" some/all of his too. Or a person would hope? :rolleyes:

alpawatch was pretty effective back in its heyday and certainly way more direct accurate and objective than the dpa. i think the current alpo performance is much worse without the alpawatch influence

Oh come on. Everybody loves a purple dinosaur! :D



If PD were here, he'd probably have a big hug for all of us. Brings a tear to my eye... ;)

Actually Alan, acl and I aren't talking in circles at all and it's definitely not semantics. Acl specifically stated that there is not currently any non-compliance with our PWA regarding the JV. George, myself and other posters corrected him, but acl dug in his heels and reiterated that there is currently no non-compliance. When I posted the actual contract language showing our current non-compliance, then further described when contract violation would occur at the end of the cure period, acl posted the political double-speak in an attempt to deflect from his own previous words.

Again, there's a difference between non-compliance and violation. When acl65pilot stated that there is currently no non-compliance with our PWA, that was done for a purpose other than properly looking out for Delta pilots. If it was just a typo, then he wouldn't have continued to defend the statement as correct until I posted the language. Why he does this, I cannot understand.

Carl

Probably has something to do with the definition of "is." ;)

It is very timely now to do so Scambo. But DALPA will not do that. As Bar stated above, DALPA will negotiate this non-compliance away before March 31, 2015 to prevent a PWA violation...which would then force DALPA to file a grievance. But DALPA doesn't want to harm our partner. Period.

When we negotiate away this non-compliance, we will definitely get a statement from the MEC administration stating how valuable the quid is that we extracted from management. Bank on it.

Carl

Bar didn't say DALPA would negotiate it away. He said the company would try to.

Bottom line here, you can't file a grievance for a violation that hasn't occurred. That was the point.

Exactly right t.

http://blog.poopbagclub.com/wp-conte...wjw1o1_500.jpg


Carl