Carl's post responded to via PM.

 

Carl,

ALPA did what they did because they believed it to be in your best interest.

Last I spoke with him, Captain Moak firmly believes that Delta pilots are better off not getting in the RJ fray because:

• The economics do not support a "mainline" contract and quality of life
• The operational future platform is limited by economics (heavy paraphrasing on my part)

As you point out, this was a long term deal. We could go all the way back to Babbit (who has since recanted), but as for our local situation ... Delta's MEC Chairman Charles Giambusso had just finished killing off the dreaded "B Scale" and the last thing he wanted in 1999 - 2000 was to bring it back on the property via operation of ASA, or Comair's flying. He felt military pilots would not want to work for those conditions and overall pilot quality at Delta would decrease as a result.

The plan then, which remains today, was to keep those undesirable airplanes off the property and restrict their numbers. That was OUR idea, it remains OUR idea today.

You say that "bargaining credits" were just political eyewash, but when you understand the internal workings of Interest Based Bargaining those numbers had real effect.

Although I constantly talk "unity" it was not that any of these guys decided to destroy "unity." They just didn't make the logical connection at that time between scope negotiations and unity. I think the level of dialogue and consideration has evolved, thanks in no small part to the marketplace of ideas shared in forums just like this.

I think our MEC gets it now and I think we will be pleased with our opener.

 

Just perused DPA's latest e-mail on the proposed FAA duty time rules. I tend to agree with DPA and am curious why ALPA is supporting their implementation. Anybody care to edu-macate me?

 

Just heard today that the DPA attorney is being fired by USAPA. Did USAPA claim something about fraud?

 

DPA is wrong on just about every part of this complicated issue. They try to skim off a few numbers without putting it in context of the entire document. It is similar to someone thinking airline pilots are rich because they make $200 an hour. You have to read the entire document because all of the rules are interconnected and they don't lend themselves to simple interpretation.

Everyone competent body that has studied the new rules agree that :

1. They will improve flight safety based on scientific research

2. They will require more pilots

Read the FAA document and then decide for yourself.

 

Total BS. ALPA has caved in so as not to jeopardize their "seat at the table". Many respected people see this as what it is...an INCREASE by up to 2 hours that a non-augmented crew can fly in a day, with all the rest being pure window dressing. There are no credible studies to show that pilot fatigue levels are unaffected by INCREASING their flight time by up to 2 hours.

The ATA wanted this JetBlue provision, and it looks like they'll get it. And once again, ALPA looks feckless and nothing more than the excuse division of airline managements.

Carl

 

Every aviation pilot labor organization is supporting implementation of the new flight time/duty times, every airline management organization opposes it. I'm not surprised that DPA has it wrong and has allied itself with the ATA. After all, DPA's legal counsel represents airline management too.

 

Yet CAPA, the APA, IBT and ALPA all are lobbying for release of the final rule. Not surprised to see Carl and the DPA in bed with management/ATA on this one.
"CAPA has long advocated “One Level of Safety” for all commercial aviation where passenger, all-cargo and charter operations are regulated equally. It is vitally important to the safety of our nation’s aviation transportation system that these new rules be implemented without further delay," comments Capt. Carl Kuwitzky, President of CAPA.

 

Even WRT scope? All scope, like JV/AK/DCI scope?

Will any "meet and confers" have been set up by the time there even is an opener? Because if they haven't, we know, at the absolute pro-Delta pilots fantasy best, status quo [unsat] will be our opener for scope.

 

In some cases yes, in other cases its generous ATA relief. Maybe the net result will in fact be a "gain" in pilot staffing. But this never should have been allowed to be even a partial "cost neutral" proposition.

Increasing the amount of ETOPS flights with longer flight time by a factor of hours with 2 pilots at the controls with no legal way to rest or take a break of any kind, potentially resulting in 3 hour single pilot oceanic ops if one pilot, who had no rest break, is suddenly dealing with everything in the event of an incapacitation just to "help pay for" an extra hour behind the door or or a shorter duty day after an early wake up or whatever is a horrible way to approach a complex safety issue.

Oh you want relief on some of these risky fatigue inducing rules? OK, let's see where we can add in an "acceptable" amount of additional fatigue to "pay for it".

Its bad enough that domestic flights will be able to be unaugmented with just a 2 person crew, but at least the vast majority of those flights are never far away from an airport. But to do this to ETOPS just to spread the cost around is sickening. If that ends up in the final ruling and ALPA supports it, ALPA will continue to lose credibility over all and in this case WRT safety. Likewise if the final ALPA endorsed rules contain a "domicile reset time" of 36 hours or some nonsense, even more credibility goes out the window. You can't just flip schedules like that and ALPA and the ATA and the FAA and NASA are all well aware of that. Mid trip domicile resets to pretend everything's "circadian cool!" just so you can save the cost of one FO is off the charts bad but will probably happen anyway because all parties involved rolled over in the name of costs in some areas to maybe help other areas.

Its great that some of the rules will enhance safety, it really is. But NONE of the other rules should make things less safe just to achieve a net gain.