Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1095766)

Saling;
I did more than call the office. I talked to the person responsible for crafting this language face to face, and then via e-mail at length.

If we were at 0, 0 then 49.5 we would have bigger problems to deal with. Under the terms spelled out in MOU 14, once reaching 49.50 it is considered 50-50 and at that point a new measurement period starts. There is no look back for this scenario. They basically have three years to get there since we started at 47.2 with the addition of AZ. Some purport we could go to 0, 0 then be in compliance and that may true, but unrealistic. The bigger game is we get half of the EASK's available going forward.

What George mentions about there being no bottom end compliance right now is as far as I can tell, and as far as I have been told by those who crafted the language, is true, but not likely. We are in the initial three year measurement period with AZ. We are not even in compliance with the new balance. Once that happens what you state is true.

I may disagree with a new measurement period being down via MOU, but this language and how it is implemented is very complex. It involves the DAL marketing agreements with the other JV carriers and then them with us. What this team did was keep a even percentage of EASK's for our pilots. Yes, the corrective window will not happen for a few years, but the long term gains are significant. We have only seen a down side to the capacity since it was drafted, if there is ever an up side, we will profit handsomely. With the profit and loss of the Bundle 1 flying being shared equally, it gives incentives beyond the language in LOA 16 and MOU 14 to keep the flying as close to equal as possible. Each side gets a few city pairs they can opt out of each year, but as a whole the profit loss is shared, and therefore, the execs want the risk and exposure shared equally.

Originally Posted by LeineLodge (Post 1095779)

I just can't imagine how he's at 75:30 actual before the 7th of the month, without vacation. If the "PROJ: " says 75:30 then it is taking into account roughly 3:53/reserve day that you will be available. You still have to actually sit that day of reserve to get 3:53. If you APD/PD/sick or are otherwise removed from a reserve day, your "PROJ: " will be reduced by 1/18th of the reserve guarantee (or 3:53/day).

In the case of sick time your time card will show your reserve guarantee reduced by 3:53/day, but your sick bank will offset it by exactly that amount so you will be paid the same either way.

Scheduling will not release you for the rest of the month until your ACTUAL credit reaches the ALV.

Originally Posted by LeineLodge (Post 1095780)

Interesting. Let us know what they say, or PM me if you don't want to let your secret method out in the open. :D

Originally Posted by rvr350 (Post 1095772)

It's saturday morning, would someone post pictures that has more round shape than say, an ibm 386?

Thanks.

Originally Posted by georgetg (Post 1095785)

That's it. I agree, it is not likely we go to zero, zero, 49.75 either but the fact remains that there is no floor right now.

We have no PWA enforceable production balance share until March 31, 2014

We gave that up to gain an additional 2.8% flying after March 31, 2014.

Note Two in 1.P.4 was a mechanism designed to provide Delta with an incentive to quickly get our share of flying into compliance. That's why it's a one time deal "the first 12-month period." But that same mechanism can be used to delay bringing up our share of flying to 50% without having to make a big gains as is happening right now "the capacity share percentages for all previous years will be disregarded."

We gained one Europe flight SEA CDG. We lost permanently many more city pairs.

This is real. I have made plenty of "phone calls" to any number of reps and insiders, many of them not so simple. I have sent boatloads of emails an crunched numbers for months. I am not making an anti ALPA argument here. But this is what it is. A simple phonecall is insufficient to gather an informed opinion on this issue. I'm just pointing out what is happening. Think of me as the FE on the UAL DC-8 pointing out the diminishing fuel supply as we hold.

Yes, we are "in compliance," and that's exactly why this is so unsat.

Cheers
George

Originally Posted by maddogmax (Post 1095786)

I am a LCA with an OE trip already on my schedule for the 11-18 which when added to my spill time brings me to the 75:17. However, that is still 5:13 under our ALV so I guess I am still on the hook.

Originally Posted by maddogmax (Post 1095786)

I am a LCA with an OE trip already on my schedule for the 11-18 which when added to my spill time brings me to the 75:17. However, that is still 5:13 under our ALV so I guess I am still on the hook.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1095792)

OK.


https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-s...y+Cleavage.jpg


Carl

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1095807)

I think part of the question is your screen name. If you have a trip on the 11-18th, you arent maddogmax anymore, you have moved on to what FTB would call a sissy jet.

I am glad we have sissy jets. Never flew and never probably (if I can help it) will fly the powerful manly maddog.:D I dont have any character and like it that way.

I completely understand how you could be done for the month. Magically a few or more months ago, I was able to turn a (very few) day month into "full" as a lineholder. I look forward to bidding with LCAs again. Workrules rule!

Originally Posted by maddogmax (Post 1095823)

Too funny. Yeah, talked to skeds. On the hook for 6:13. Not too many turns on the "Sissy Jet" Thanks for all the help.
Happy Holidays