Delta Pilots Association
02-06-2014, 11:27 AM
#9101
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver
Nope. I only have one opinion on it. I think I've made that about as clear as it can be made.
I want DALPA to get their act together so that none of my fellow pilots end up getting in trouble because they relied on a faulty interpretation of the new FAR. That's all I care about and my main reason for posting on the topic here. Until DALPA gets it figured out, hopefully at least somebody reading this here will have a better understanding and will avoid getting into trouble at some point in the future.
As a side benefit, it demonstrates DALPA's incompetence. And even though it makes it an appropriate topic for the DPA thread, it's not my primary purpose in posting.
I want DALPA to get their act together so that none of my fellow pilots end up getting in trouble because they relied on a faulty interpretation of the new FAR. That's all I care about and my main reason for posting on the topic here. Until DALPA gets it figured out, hopefully at least somebody reading this here will have a better understanding and will avoid getting into trouble at some point in the future.
As a side benefit, it demonstrates DALPA's incompetence. And even though it makes it an appropriate topic for the DPA thread, it's not my primary purpose in posting.
02-06-2014, 11:36 AM
#9102
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Permanently scarred
Posts: 1,707
Originally Posted by tsquare
Then call skeds, and tell them you need more time. Simple. You're still at DefCon 4 for no real reason..
02-06-2014, 11:41 AM
#9103
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Permanently scarred
Posts: 1,707
Originally Posted by 76drvr
Zero cost? So far with C2012 we've received over 17% (16 pay +1 401K) increase in compensation, increased reserve guarantee by approx 5 hours on average, increased trip rigs with an ADG, increased vacation pay and had 100s of new captain bids as the 717s come on property and you think that's zero cost because you lost the equivalent of 2% of pay in profit sharing this yeart. Let me guess, during bankruptcy you were jumping up and down cheering about how the 1113c contracts were zero cost because we got profit sharing out of the deal. 
They can keep 5% profit sharing (equivalent of 2% of pay), give me a fixed pay increase of 17% and you can call that zero cost all you want, but I'd call that more money in my pocket.
They can keep 5% profit sharing (equivalent of 2% of pay), give me a fixed pay increase of 17% and you can call that zero cost all you want, but I'd call that more money in my pocket.
02-06-2014, 12:07 PM
#9104
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by GunshipGuy
The man is making a very good point. Your "call skeds" doesn't clear the matter up. When almost everything else we deal with is black and white, something as straight forward as this issue should be as well. Simple enough.
But for the sake of discussion... and this will certainly be an issue on the next contract... how much time should we contractually have "behind the door" to ensure 8 uninterrupted hours of sleep opportunity?
02-06-2014, 12:36 PM
#9105
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
Originally Posted by tsquare
But for the sake of discussion... and this will certainly be an issue on the next contract... how much time should we contractually have "behind the door" to ensure 8 uninterrupted hours of sleep opportunity?
What we DON'T need is our union telling us that "8 hours behind the door" is in compliance with the FAR. It's not. So in terms of the contract, the only change I see needed is to remove the "8 hours behind the door" language, as it is now obsolete.
02-06-2014, 12:43 PM
#9106
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
Originally Posted by tsquare
lulz. I was referring to my and Johnso's opinion, not yours.
Originally Posted by tsquare
And I find it very interesting that you revel (and there is no doubt that you do) in what you term "DALPA's incompetence". Says a lot.....
One way or another, people need to wake up and it needs to change. I've reached the conclusion that it's very unlikely to change with DALPA, so I'm willing to give someone else a chance to try. But if I'm proven wrong and DALPA is able to somehow change, then that would be perfectly fine with me. It's all really up to DALPA. DPA would not even exist if DALPA was properly representing us.
02-06-2014, 12:53 PM
#9108
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 474
Originally Posted by GunshipGuy
Where did you put in the calculation for how much the company saved with changing the bid months and the cost savings on going with more 76 seaters, fewer 50 seaters, and avoiding mx costs on the 50 seaters?
02-06-2014, 01:07 PM
#9109
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 474
Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver
I don't think it needs to be spelled out in the contract. We have an FAR that is very specific. I think it's best left to each individual to decide for himself how much time over 8 hours is needed in the room in order to get the FAR mandated 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep opportunity.
Q - 67. Who determines if a flightcrew member has received an 8 consecutive-hour sleep opportunity?
A- 67. Only the flightcrew member can make this determination because of the many variables involved.
02-06-2014, 01:32 PM
#9110
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Position: C560XL/XLS/XLS+
Posts: 1,278
Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver
I don't think it needs to be spelled out in the contract. We have an FAR that is very specific. I think it's best left to each individual to decide for himself how much time over 8 hours is needed in the room in order to get the FAR mandated 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep opportunity.
What we DON'T need is our union telling us that "8 hours behind the door" is in compliance with the FAR. It's not. So in terms of the contract, the only change I see needed is to remove the "8 hours behind the door" language, as it is now obsolete.
What we DON'T need is our union telling us that "8 hours behind the door" is in compliance with the FAR. It's not. So in terms of the contract, the only change I see needed is to remove the "8 hours behind the door" language, as it is now obsolete.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
