Perhaps with your own experience, this is the case. That doesn't make it the case with the majority though. I know pilots that have done an entire month of CDOs, and they most certainly did sleep during the day. CDOs have been done for years, and been done safely. That doesn't mean I want them at DAL, but it does mean that your stance on this issue is lacking factual support.

Did the AF or KLM pilot unions give permission this time around? I asked last time around about this issue and was told that both groups provided info to the MEC on the condition that it not be published. Much of their benefits structure was government controlled as I recall and I was told that complicated apples to apples comparisons as well.

I didn't realize they had given permission this time around and that the Neg Com had ignored it. Where did you get that info? Or is that not entirely true?

If you were the union and you had the official contract information, yet were asked not to publish it...okay. You are still the same union and you get the same information from open source channels (internet?). You can legally compare the two and publish the open source info with authority and legitimately be upholding the agreement not to publish the official information.

Withholding information from constituents is not lying, but it is also not exactly upholding your duty of fair representation either.

I understand what you are saying. I would like to look at these open source versions of their pilot working agreements that are on the internet. I tried google and didn't see them. I found some third party sights with some "estimates" of what monthly salaries would be, although they were a couple of years old. No indication of where the salary estimates were derived from. Having salary numbers only wouldn't provide for a contract comparison anyway. I want to look at the whole enchilada. Where did you find them?

You don't have a copy of the TA that produced LOA 14-01. There are significant differences between "CDOs" at your slave galley of an airline, and "SDPs" as defined by the TA.

C44 reps said they would have passed it except for a few items; they wanted a test period prior to allowing the program to become permanent, and they wanted SDPs to pay 8 hours (versus 7.5).

It looked like a good deal to me, and a much better use of my time than spending thirty hours in MKC. I hope they come back with the C44 suggestions attached plus a few other protections.

Oh I feel confident it will be back... as evidenced by the number of hard core DALPA supporters arguing in favor of it. Sounds to me like the company really wants these things, and by golly we've got to keep RA happy! :rolleyes:

So we'll get them. The company will have their problem solved and, oh by the way, even though we know why you want to bid these, don't fly fatigued (wink, wink, nod, nod). :rolleyes:

Just because there hasn't been a mishap yet, doesn't mean they're being done "safely."

We should immediately ground all night cargo operations. There is no possible way they can be done safely when pilots have to sleep at home before coming into work and then flying multiple legs at night with breaks.

UPS 1354 Birmingham, AL.


http://imgick.al.com/home/bama-media...b32375fce8.jpg


Carl

And the thousands of other weekly flights that occur without accident or incident? I suppose they've just been lucky for all of these years?

May they RIP.