I really thought FAR 117 was going to be a win. Real hard duty limits. Turns out to actually be worse! Ouch!

What I don't understand about allowing CDOs and your post is why would we desire to lower our level of safety?

This is the same as age 65, it is all about greed.

CDOs lower our level of safety.

Shiznit what does one single fatal crash cost Delta Air Lines?

How much did AF 447 cost? $500 million? $1 billion?

Did AF save money putting first officers in the left seat?

IMO what ever they saved over the years was a pittance compared to the cost of AF 447. What was the captain thinking when he reached the cockpit??

I don't think it was pull back on the stick.

I'll take DALPA's word that AF/KLM didn't want the data made public. It could have easily been done by using general terms. In the contract comparison for example, you could have added the AF/KLM items by saying: "much better than ours", better than ours", "about the same as ours", "worse than ours", "much worse than ours". That wasn't done. DALPA has the information, but chose to keep it out of the comparison in any way shape or form. That's ignoring the data.

I didn't mention anything about permission. You're the one raising it as an issue.

Again, only you are raising it.

Raising a straw man argument, then trying to infer that I'm lying is not like you Hillbilly. That's alfaromeo stuff.

Carl

Yes. Lucky to this day. When NASA did the study on planned naps in the cockpit, they found that planned naps reduced the number of "micronaps" experienced by pilots from hundreds to a few dozen. Even with planned naps however, many of the micronaps were experienced low to the ground on approach.

We're asking pilots to do things that the human body simply cannot do without involuntarily shutting down from seconds to minutes. Making excuses for it is idiocy.


FedEx, Newark, NJ.


http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/faq9.FedExEwr2.jpg


Carl

Allowing SDP's will make the transition of regional flying to mainline easier as well.

Understood Carl. I shouldn't have implied you were not being truthful. I misread what you were saying. Your post gave me the impression that DALPA had the data and they made the choice to purposefully not share it, as you made no mention of lack of permission, etc. Last time around we were told the reason for it not being published in the comparison was because the other pilot groups had specifically asked DALPA not to do so. Your post only made sense to me if they had gotten permission this time, thus actually giving them a choice to make regarding whether or not they included the info in the Contract Comparison. That is why I asked for the clarification, but I agree that I shouldn't have implied you were lying.

My apologies.


Sent from PD's fridge where his drank got me leanin' using Tapatalk

That has to be the worst logic I've ever read.


Sent with a confused look on my face using Tapatalk

No problem. :)

The key is that DALPA has the data and specifically refuses to use it in comparisons...even in the most general way. This is what I don't understand. In the past, my other ALPA airlines used every trick in the book to make us look like we were one step away from a poverty contract. I admit that I was even a little embarrassed sometimes at the logic and data used to make us look like we needed 100% wage gains just to keep starvation away.

With DALPA, we've gone to the opposite extreme. We find excuses to disqualify data that would help us. AF/KLM data is one example. During C2012, we had many posters here express reasons why SWA couldn't be used because of the single fleet type and associated cost savings, while other said we couldn't use FDX/UPS because they weren't even in the same business we were. These same people (now known to be elected reps and MEC admins) wanted the comparisons to be with UsAirways, American and jetBlue.

For an old fart like me, it is this change among our own union members that floors me.

Carl

That's a lot of luck, but ok. Sure. Every time you go on an Asia trip you're asking your body to do something it's not supposed to do. Same thing. Random naps here and there. Pilots taking sleeping pills to force rest. Somehow though, that's different.

Disclaimer-The sleeping pills statement was a general statement. I'm not saying that you do that.

I understand and agree with what you're saying except for the part above. My view of it is not that they are refusing to use it, but they are being true to their word with the pilots of our JV partners in not publishing the info in our contract comparisons. I think they are using the data when constructing a negotiating position.

If I were an AF pilot working with their union and I had agreed to provide you with the details of our PWA on the condition that you not include it in a published piece on contract comparisons and then you turned around and included a line under the heading of AF pilot contract for each section in that publication with a general statement like you previously referenced, I'd be ****ed and think you had in fact not kept your word with me. You saying that you didn't publish details and only used general statements would go over like a fart in church. I certainly would be inclined to not cooperate next time. But that's just me.


Sent using Tapatalk

The regionals are dying, and do a lot of flying the mainline doesn't do. CDO's allow the company to utilize the aircraft at a higher rate, especially the RJ's, which, are usually the first and last flights, to and from the hub. Those flights need to be replaced by mainline.