Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,226
I think you made similar comments last time the subject came up.
1. We're in negotiations; the PWA can be changed
2. LOAs can modify/ improve/ modernize language and we can all weigh in by memrat
3. Scheduling needn't wait 10 minutes if someone declines. If you watch a batch of 30 pilots responding to arcos while repeatedly refreshing, you can see declines and nominations happening at a rate of 5 or more per minute. The logic could look like this:
Scheduler Gets the report. Build the pool of 10 pilots. Hit "start", goes to get coffee. First pilot contacted at 1200 with phone call(s) and ARCOS. First pilot declines at 1203 after referencing details. Second pilot contacted instantly when pilot 1 hits decline, declines at 1205. Third pilot declines at 1208. Fourth pilot doesn't respond. 10 minutes after 4th pilot contacted at 1218, fifth pilot is contracted and accepts/acknowledges the rotation at 1221. Pilots 6 through 10 are never bothered about a GS they weren't going to get. Scheduler returns from the bathroom. ARCOS processed 5 pilots in 21 minutes - way faster than old school, 5 unanswered phone calls and an hour of labor. This scenario is also faster than current implementation of ARCOS, which uses the separate 15- and 10- minute response windows for a minimum completion of 25 minutes (and unnecessarily bothers 5 pilots).
In such a scenario, the software could also be programmed to give pilots an option to opt in if they have been placed in the bucket, prior to them getting their actual solicitation. Then those who want the extra lead time to consider, even knowing it isn't necessarily theirs, can have it. Those who don't want to deal with the head fake needn't do so, and they just don't opt-in for that feature.
1. We're in negotiations; the PWA can be changed
2. LOAs can modify/ improve/ modernize language and we can all weigh in by memrat
3. Scheduling needn't wait 10 minutes if someone declines. If you watch a batch of 30 pilots responding to arcos while repeatedly refreshing, you can see declines and nominations happening at a rate of 5 or more per minute. The logic could look like this:
Scheduler Gets the report. Build the pool of 10 pilots. Hit "start", goes to get coffee. First pilot contacted at 1200 with phone call(s) and ARCOS. First pilot declines at 1203 after referencing details. Second pilot contacted instantly when pilot 1 hits decline, declines at 1205. Third pilot declines at 1208. Fourth pilot doesn't respond. 10 minutes after 4th pilot contacted at 1218, fifth pilot is contracted and accepts/acknowledges the rotation at 1221. Pilots 6 through 10 are never bothered about a GS they weren't going to get. Scheduler returns from the bathroom. ARCOS processed 5 pilots in 21 minutes - way faster than old school, 5 unanswered phone calls and an hour of labor. This scenario is also faster than current implementation of ARCOS, which uses the separate 15- and 10- minute response windows for a minimum completion of 25 minutes (and unnecessarily bothers 5 pilots).
In such a scenario, the software could also be programmed to give pilots an option to opt in if they have been placed in the bucket, prior to them getting their actual solicitation. Then those who want the extra lead time to consider, even knowing it isn't necessarily theirs, can have it. Those who don't want to deal with the head fake needn't do so, and they just don't opt-in for that feature.
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,905
I have more faith in our group than that. Even presently, when you help no one whatsoever to decline instead of ignoring, I see roughly half of pilots declining. If they knew it could speed up coverage and get others flying green slips they don't want, i think we could better than number a lot.
New Hire
Joined APC: Mar 2019
Posts: 2
Out of Base Swap Board
Pretty sure you can't swap trips out of base on the swap board but can you pick up out of base trips on the swap board?
QHCP reimbursement
Are we able to get reimbursed for a Dr’s visit to meet the QHCP requirement?
There are 2 scenarios where they will reimburse for verification.
1. You need to verify and are under the QHCP requirement (100 - <160 hrs in the look back) and the company exercises its option under 14 F.2. to require a Doctor's Certificate in your case rather than accepting a QHCP certificate.
2. You are required to get a Doctor's Certificate under a "good faith basis" inquiry under 14 F.4.
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: Power top
Posts: 2,959
Only if the company has officially told you that they will not accept a QHCP certificate in your case. If you are providing a doctor's note on your own accord to satisfy the verification requirement, then no. 14 F.5.
There are 2 scenarios where they will reimburse for verification.
1. You need to verify and are under the QHCP requirement (100 - <160 hrs in the look back) and the company exercises its option under 14 F.2. to require a Doctor's Certificate in your case rather than accepting a QHCP certificate.
2. You are required to get a Doctor's Certificate under a "good faith basis" inquiry under 14 F.4.
There are 2 scenarios where they will reimburse for verification.
1. You need to verify and are under the QHCP requirement (100 - <160 hrs in the look back) and the company exercises its option under 14 F.2. to require a Doctor's Certificate in your case rather than accepting a QHCP certificate.
2. You are required to get a Doctor's Certificate under a "good faith basis" inquiry under 14 F.4.
I agree. I’d like to see it completely eliminated and that’s coming from someone that has never had to verify a single sick call. My gut tells me the best we will probably end up with are larger numbers for the triggers, but I hope they knock it out of the park and eliminate it.
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: Power top
Posts: 2,959
I agree. I’d like to see it completely eliminated and that’s coming from someone that has never had to verify a single sick call. My gut tells me the best we will probably end up with are larger numbers for the triggers, but I hope they knock it out of the park and eliminate it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post