Has anyone asked management or ALPA, why can't Delta buy an additional 25 ERJ 175's, in addition to the E190s, and fly them at mainline, they are same damn airplane for God sakes.


Edit: I'd also like to point out that the 200 agreements at DCI expire this year, so Delta doesn't need additional super premium wide body jumbo RJ's to park 50 seaters; Read the Skywest 10Q here: http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/...av=1&src=Yahoo

 

Can you be 116th and Malcolm x Blvd at 2am? It's in Harlem.

 

The way I read it you will get paid as you should, as you do today.

Presumably the language is there to prevent guys who have flown so much that they are approaching FAR limits that the only way to pick up more flying (GS or WS) would be to call in sick earlier in the month (thus reducing block hours flown, removing FAR consideration etc).

I don't know if we had a problem there but that is how I read the (hopefully rejected) TA language.

 

Jumped in two A320s today. MSP and DTW crews. All solid no votes.

 

Yes it does. Nobody disagrees with that. So as you see, the JV grievance was rolled into C2015 after all.

The TA says nothing about "adding" aircraft. They could be replacements of older narrow bodies here now and that would be completely allowed. The additional jumbo RJ's still come.

Yes. You're missing that the change to block hours will ALLOW management to move our euro flying to smaller lower paying equipment...and still be in compliance. Since there's no stated limit as to how small an aircraft must be used to satisfy this new block hour measurement metric, the company can go as small (and low paying) as they like. Only aircraft block hours will matter with this TA.

Carl

 

Thanks Herkflyr. I kept getting caught up in the weeds.

 

There are abusers and we all damn well know it. One reason they don't get fired is that DALPA defends them mightily, the same way a defense attorney does his best even if he "knows" his client did it. This is the same DALPA everyone is castigating.

Guys like that I wouldn't trust any further than I could throw them. It seems to me that he is the very definition of an "abuser." They are the reason that we have this POS sick section to begin with. Do you disagree?

Sick leave at this company is sort of (but not exactly) like the insurance on your car or house. It is not a "benefit" to be tapped any time you feel like--it is there for when you need it. The actuarial assumptions for an insurance company assume that most customers do not use their services most of the time. Almost all customers will eventually submit an honest claim for smaller scale stuff (fender benders, hail roof damage) and then there is the occasional total loss (totaled car, lightning burns down the house). NO insurance company has models that assume all customers use all the coverage every year--and then gloat about it!

While I think that our SVP of flight ops has an almost alarming obsession with sick leave use, the bottom line is that there are a quantifiable group of guys who use all their sick leave, but miraculously get better a couple of months before the sick leave resets (but rarely if ever go on short term disability)

Actually you are completely correct--and it punishes those of us who call in sick when we are sick (as I do--I'm not getting anyone sick in my cockpit!) but don't when we aren't sick.

You are probably right--and it is one reason I will vote against this poor TA. I just disagreed with your impression that the "guy you flew with" was somehow in the right and sick leave was just a great benefit to tap year after year. Guys like him make it a real pain for the negotiators.

At the same time I despise the occasional (though thankfully increasingly rare) guys who brag about going decades without calling in sick. Either they are a rare breed indeed or they have flown sick (for some weird "I have to save Delta" reason) and gotten others sick in the process. Thanks guys!

 

Maybe yes, maybe no. NOTHING in the TA about it.

They'll immediately be in compliance regardless of whether Alitalia leaves or not. Their old compliance violations are immediately forgiven due to removing EASK's as the measuring metric. There will be no existing compliance violations because we reduced our flying even further to give management more breathing room.

Totally false. The TA says NOTHING about this. Be careful with this stuff folks. This is what the MEC admins will be doing all day long at their road shows. Slowplay did this EXACT stuff when he did this as an admin roadshow guy in C2012.

See above. Read the actual TA language. It tells you everything you need to know. And there's no opinions, spin or falsehoods.

Carl

 

Unfortunately I had 767-400 FO on the JUMPSEAT today that said his crew were for the TA. All excited about the rates. Also said in the international lounge in Atlanta Friday afternoon all the talk was about the pay raise. We have our work cut out for us to defeat this turd.

 

What it means is if you call in sick in the beginning of the month that time you would have flown counts in any FAR 117 duty limits calculations even though you didn't' fly it! So you sick out 1-4 of the month. If you try to GS later that week the computer will calculate the FAR 117 limits like you flew that trip. So if you could have flown that trip with the other one you'll get the GS. If that sick trip would have been a conflict if you flew it then nope, no greenie. But.... if you call in well and fly during the footprint of your sick trip then the previous restriction doesn't apply. Same language in the WS section too.

This is obviously meant to punish sick users.