According to a rep I spoke to this is not correct. You are full at ALV but scheduling can call and ask you to take a trip that puts you at ALV plus 15. You can say no.

This was put into the contract to allow reserves to fly over ALV if they wanted to without putting in yellow slips. According to the rep one thing pilots asked for was the ability to fly more.

Thats one of my biggest issues with this contract. No more three days worth 10.3. If I'm going to layover someplace for 30 hours because it's in the company's best interest, fine, but pay me for it. LAX 73 guys with a line are working 18-20 days a month to make 78 hours. The scheduling process needs to ensure that we are productively used. That, and pay training and vacation commensurate with our duty time.

That is all for now.

OBTW, hanging at the pool at Aria Las Vegas. Serious eye candy. My wife included.

The part I'm missing is where do we get & what kind of tablet are we supposed to use? Is the Co saying that if we buy our own and want to use them that we can, or are they going to provide us tablets?

Baja.

I haven't noticed so much an uptick but a feeling that I have even less choice (I'm not very senior). I do see a wider variety in RAW scores. In my base last month they ranged from 50 to 160. Probably just bad luck. I flew 72 credit hours in 26 days once - that was old rules, but if you're the only 2 or 4 day guy available and only 2 and 4 day trips come open, you're just unlucky.

Then repost it. CTRL - C, CTRL - V.

I don't post much, but sit reserve and kill time reading this thread.
1. Unless you are a senior F/O on the super premium wide body pay scale this T/A will not be for us. Just a realist.

2. If you don't like your trips don't go to work. There are multiple options available to drop trips via the PWA. Heck there are even ways to get paid and stay at home.

As a collective group we need to realize we have the upper hand and grow a set. There is no one on the property that does not have at least 1.5 months of platinum days and 2 months worth of profit sharing pay. Stay home and enjoy.

I am not trying to gun for my own gains at all. I want reserve pilots to get better QOL and more pay. I just pointed out that a lot of the more vocal pilots on this board are reserve guys, and that may or may not be by choice. I want the whole contract to be better. I just want the reserve guys to also look at life while not on reserve, which may be around the corner. No need to get hostile.

OK, I apologize. I must have misunderstood what you were saying.

I guess I am just frustrated with guys talking about giving up QOL or horse trading items that could leave us worse off than we currently are in some areas.

Well said! And let's not move backwards in QOL. Money is important but if you are too damn tired to use it, what's the use.

IOW, more 76 seaters at DCI. Probably lots more, like 50-100 or even more. OK, while that's an automatic no vote from me and I don't buy into any of the sky is falling alternatives, let's run with that assumption that we *need* these additional 76 seaters and we need them at DCI. Again, I strongly disagree, but let's assume it is the case (cause it WILL be in the TA no matter what.)

At that point, the easiest and most foolproof way to test the validity of management's supposedly desperate RJ lease situation theory is to see the longevity of these additional (as well as existing) large RJ DC-9-10 replacement jets. What I mean by that is even if they truly need these extra jets at DCI and even if it is in our best interests over all (which it isn't) then the company should have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with making all of the additional jets temporary and offer a complete phase out of all of DCI above 50 seats in a reasonable timeframe. As in, no more DCI agreements can be renewed for over 50 seaters ever, and all must be gone by 2020 with very significant reductions starting a few years prior to that. That coincides with a full and complete sunset.

But does anyone really think management will go for that? They want more DC-9 replacement jets at DCI and they want them now. But the key here is they want them permanently. That's how you know they are lying about their intentions. If it were truly a one time please help us out deal that will save epic tons of money, they should have no problem putting an aggressive but doable drop dead sunset clause on all DCI over 50 seats. But THEY WON'T.

Again, that is how you know they are lying. Its also how you know our own MEC falsely thinks they are savvy in partnering with management to sell out more mainline jobs in the long run, even if phase I of all this results in hiring fairly quickly.

The way this is being pushed by the MEC, and supposedly in the spirit of constructive engagement, and to "unleash the DNA of Delta" as the guy who sits behind C.E. Woolman's desk so eloquently puts it, we should face absolutely no resistance in a complete drop dead of all >50 seaters before the decade is out unless what this is really about is permanent narrowbody fleet replacement and a never ending dead weight to our bargaining leverage. There is no other logical reason they wouldn't agree to it that that.

If that is not in the upcoming scope sale in the TA for more large RJ's, the company is lying to us and the MEC is, for whatever reason, partnering with them to gut the smaller end of our narrowbody jobs even more over the long term.