Excellent! Apologies if that came off wrong.

Glad to hear I'm not the only one that's noticed these rotations.

We still have duty rig, we still have trip rig. But especially for shorter trips, they did not do as much for the pilot group in terms of minimum expected pay per trip. ADG was a vast improvement over what we previously had, which was a DUTY period average (as in 30-hour layover on a three day trip equals only two duty periods, which equals a three-day trip worth 11 hours; those were very common, now don't exist in any form ever).

No trip will ever pay less than 5.15 per calendar day, and this also applies to reserves--every time. Both were unheard of in the 18+ years I have been here, until our recent 117-related side letter brought this very nice provision to the contract.

But trip rigs are still there. As an example, check out this (edited for clarity and deleting layover hotel info) DTW 330 trip, to see the value of trip rig, especially for longer trips. The trip pays a bit over 75 hours, of which 20 is trip rig!

DTW PILOT 330 *** ROTATION OPER
A### POS-B

DAY FLT T DEPARTS ARRIVES C BLK M/U TURN M EQP
3 D 582 *DTW 1944 LGA 2128

4 418 *JFK 1828 MXP 0845 8.17

7 419 MXP 1055 JFK 1348 * 8.53

8 476 *JFK 2033 BCN 1035 8.02

10 477 BCN 1335 JFK 1622 * 8.47

11 418 *JFK 1838 MXP 0855 8.17

14 419 MXP 1055 JFK 1348 * 8.53
D2312 JFK 1630 DTW 1851 2.21

20.06TRP

REGULAR--75.36TL 51.09BL 24.27CR 0.00MU
RESERVE- 75.36TL 51.09BL 24.27CR 0.00MU

Thanks for the data, Herk!

What I've been seeing is the shoehorning of 4 duty periods into a 3 day trip (that only pays 15:45), 5 duty periods into a 4 day trip, etc. Again, flying one redeye is fine but to have multiple circadian shifts in one rotation is less than ideal to say the least.

It seems to me if our contract had verbiage that a rotation would pay the greater of a 5:15 ADG or 5:15 duty period minimum, it would provide a negative incentive for the company to build these things.

That sounds like a pretty good idea to me. We fixed the one problem (two duty periods in a three day trip) but did not anticipate the other (5 duty periods in a four-day).

All I can say is provide such inputs to your reps, who then direct the negotiators. Chatting on this forum is useful to a point but won't change anything contractually.

And I'm looking forward to you reminding us how much of a badazz you are because you went on "strike".

I agree, and I think we will. But those that continually spew the woe is me rhetoric need to return to the real world. We'll get a great contract, but it will take 12,000 voices, and when you have some of the insane stuff being passed around in the real world that goes on here, you will never get any kind of consensus. Wanna go on strike? It sure as hell bettered be for the right reason, and not just because you are a little butthurt because XXX airline got XXX and we don't. I'm in though, I have enough right now to pack it in. Wanna say no? Give me a good reason, and I'll join right in.

This place is hilarious.

That took about three reads, and it ends up not saying much. We should strike for the right reasons, but not the wrong reasons? He wants a great contract, you say we're getting a great contract, but you're hedging your bets by saying it needs to be a consensus contract?

I'll settle for a very strong contract that improves the quality of my career, and reflects my contribution to the success of the airline. I'll decide whether any hypothetical TA meets the test. Having debates about what other people should expect is futile. I think the only pertinent questions are:

1) Whether the union is properly determining the will of the group
2) Whether any TA that is reached respects the will of the group
3) Whether or not individual pilots will opt to vote for/against any such TA

As far as #1, I'd say the survey was marginally acceptable. I wasn't polled subsequently. The opener, conceptual as it is, doesn't seem to show that the union has gone off the reservation. I'm pleased at what was included, and what wasn't. We'll see.

And of course you can back that up by showing a post of mine where I've ever insinuated such a thing.

Carl

How much do you think the company puts forth for each pilot who elects to sign up for the most basic of the Delta's Health Care plans? I ask because another Fortune 500 company where I worked provided its employees with a "payback" if you will for not using their health care insurance--just not signing up for it because the employee had coverage from their spouse's job or from a former job, like the military.

I don't use Delta's heath care plan. I have coverage already and on my contract survey suggested our NC ask the company to provide a payback to pilots who don't use the Delta health care plans. Offering health care plans for employees is a huge expense for the company, and those who don't need it are in effect saving the company money. IMO, there should be some payback to those who aren't costing the company in this regard. I did not see anything about this on the contract opener.

My wife worked as a nurse in a hospital and got a 25% bump for this very reason. Wouldn't expect it to be that much at DAL, but I do agree there is a value on this benefit that we are not using!