Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
10-13-2010 | 01:30 PM
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 851
Likes: 0
We should apply for LAX-PVG flights and see how long it will take the DOT to DISAPPROVE our request
10-13-2010 | 01:37 PM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
OK. The man who wrote a lengthy campaign letter and NEVER ONCE MENTIONED SCOPE has just been elected as ALPA's new President.
To the crowd who want to reform ALPA from within...any new thoughts on the subject? Or are we sticking with the vision?
Carl
To the crowd who want to reform ALPA from within...any new thoughts on the subject? Or are we sticking with the vision?
Carl
10-13-2010 | 01:38 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
From: 777 Sim Instructor
Finis,
From what I have read of the proposed rules, my question is this...........What happens if the company decides to have 48 hour layovers instead of 24? My take from reading the proposed rules is that a 48 hour layover would reset your "base" time to where you are laying over and you could now do a 2 man 9 or 10 hour leg each way based on your "local" departure time.
The proposed rules allow 9 hour legs for a "local" base departure between 0500 and 1959 with a 10 hour leg from 0700 to 1259.
Some one please correct me if I'm reading the proposed rules wrong.The following is from the NPRM:
Denny
Edit: You could fly a 9 hour leg over and 10 hour leg back.
From what I have read of the proposed rules, my question is this...........What happens if the company decides to have 48 hour layovers instead of 24? My take from reading the proposed rules is that a 48 hour layover would reset your "base" time to where you are laying over and you could now do a 2 man 9 or 10 hour leg each way based on your "local" departure time.
The proposed rules allow 9 hour legs for a "local" base departure between 0500 and 1959 with a 10 hour leg from 0700 to 1259.
Some one please correct me if I'm reading the proposed rules wrong.The following is from the NPRM:
The FAA proposes to permit a carrier to adjust where the flightcrew member
enters the FDP as an acclimated crew member if the individual has been in a new theater
of operations for 72 hours or has been given at least 36 consecutive hours free from duty.enters the FDP as an acclimated crew member if the individual has been in a new theater
Denny
Edit: You could fly a 9 hour leg over and 10 hour leg back.
10-13-2010 | 01:46 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,971
Likes: 0
From: Kickin’ Back
As ACL stated, at least we have it in the contract that an RP is needed on flight over 8 hours. Unfortunately I see this as something the company will go after in the next contract. That is, if the NPRM is enacted in it's current form. I totally agree with your sentiment.
Denny
10-13-2010 | 01:49 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
From: 7ERB, no M88, no 7ER, no A320, NEXT!
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't each PILOT group vote on every scope relief decision. I believe there is not one single instance of ALPA forcing any pilot group into relieving scope to benefit a regional pilot group, is there.
Stop blaming ALPA for the votes of the majority on each property. Regardless of whatever the new prez writes, he does not decide scope relief or restoration on ANY ALPA property.
We all need to look in the mirror to solve this problem. The best thing for mainline pilots and regional pilots alike is to get rid of as many RJ's as possible. The only way to do that is to realize that WE, as in mainline pilots, are the ones who gave that flying away to begin with.
10-13-2010 | 01:52 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,601
Likes: 0
From: Dismayed
That brings up the safety of the 24 hour international SC. If they're not safe enough to fly domestically, why are they now magically safe to fly to Manaus or some other international location. Does the DAL legal team really think that they wouldn't be sued into yesterday on an international screwup potentially linked to crew rest?
10-13-2010 | 01:56 PM
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't each PILOT group vote on every scope relief decision. I believe there is not one single instance of ALPA forcing any pilot group into relieving scope to benefit a regional pilot group, is there.
Stop blaming ALPA for the votes of the majority on each property. Regardless of whatever the new prez writes, he does not decide scope relief or restoration on ANY ALPA property.
We all need to look in the mirror to solve this problem. The best thing for mainline pilots and regional pilots alike is to get rid of as many RJ's as possible. The only way to do that is to realize that WE, as in mainline pilots, are the ones who gave that flying away to begin with.
Stop blaming ALPA for the votes of the majority on each property. Regardless of whatever the new prez writes, he does not decide scope relief or restoration on ANY ALPA property.
We all need to look in the mirror to solve this problem. The best thing for mainline pilots and regional pilots alike is to get rid of as many RJ's as possible. The only way to do that is to realize that WE, as in mainline pilots, are the ones who gave that flying away to begin with.
Carl
10-13-2010 | 02:01 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,355
Likes: 34
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't each PILOT group vote on every scope relief decision. I believe there is not one single instance of ALPA forcing any pilot group into relieving scope to benefit a regional pilot group, is there.
Stop blaming ALPA for the votes of the majority on each property. Regardless of whatever the new prez writes, he does not decide scope relief or restoration on ANY ALPA property.
We all need to look in the mirror to solve this problem. The best thing for mainline pilots and regional pilots alike is to get rid of as many RJ's as possible. The only way to do that is to realize that WE, as in mainline pilots, are the ones who gave that flying away to begin with.
Stop blaming ALPA for the votes of the majority on each property. Regardless of whatever the new prez writes, he does not decide scope relief or restoration on ANY ALPA property.
We all need to look in the mirror to solve this problem. The best thing for mainline pilots and regional pilots alike is to get rid of as many RJ's as possible. The only way to do that is to realize that WE, as in mainline pilots, are the ones who gave that flying away to begin with.
Time think hard about DPA.
10-13-2010 | 02:04 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
From: 7ERB, no M88, no 7ER, no A320, NEXT!
I am not sticking for any vision. You have got to stop blaming ALPA for all that ails this pilot group, because it is just not accurate. ALPA national has little to no control over what goes on at the local level, they offer resources and guidance. Sometimes their guidance is wrong, but it is up to each pilot group to make that decision, ALPA does not do it for you.
Delta pilots voted for every single scope concession that has taken place, ALPA did not force any of it. Lee Moak did not make those decisions for you. One of the first things I learned when I was an ALPA rep for my regional, is that you can say no to ALPA and they must abide by your decision. The national officers are not running the show, your pilot group is.
I want to get rid of all the RJ's just like you, but ALPA cannot do it for us, we must impose our will on our negotiators to get what we want. And if they bring us back something that we don't like, then we vote NO!
It really is that simple.
10-13-2010 | 02:05 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
From: 7ERB, no M88, no 7ER, no A320, NEXT!
The RJ lifers are in the minority and they don't have any say in OUR scope negotiations. Screw them!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
