FangsF15

Yeah, it is confusing. I was using the iCrew input nomenclature for the Yes/No as the first/second step. I have never "split" my yes/no between the two, so I'm suddenly questioning myself on which one is which! After rereading Sched Alert 23-11, I realize I put that wrong in post 105. ARGH!

The first and second (leftmost) questions on the GS form are "Ack" on/off duty which is actually the second ARCOS step. The third and fourth (rightmost) question is "Auto Accept" on/off duty which is the first ARCOS step, and the one you want to say "Yes" to if you want to only get a phone call in the middle of the night if you actually got a rotation. Right? RIGHT? No wonder it's confusing.

crewdawg

Confusing for sure! Last I checked, we all read left to right, so why it's not input that way is beyond me. Like you, I've always just put a yes for both auto ack and accept, or no to all, so it's never been a problem until now. In my brain, both terms makes sense either way you look at it, which just adds to the confusion.

Puddytatt

Correct.

It's easy peasy. Putting in a slip is asking for any trip that meets the slip parameters. Accepting an ARCOS trip actually means acknowledging you are willing to do that specific trip if you become #1 for it. And acknowledging a trip actually means accepting it because you were #1 for it. What's so confusing? 🤣

Accepting should do what acknowledging currently does, but it doesn't. It would be a lot less confusing if it was auto-proffer and auto-accept or auto-want and auto-confirm or many other options.

RunFast

Just got ARCOS call for GD tomorrow. Auto Ack Yes, Auto Acc No. Just as I hit the ARCOS app the phone call ends and the app has no callouts. I call scheduling and she tells me they stopped the ARCOS callout because it was picked up via PCS. The pilot who picked it up is REG but no “reason” given in the daily trip coverage. I thought PCS stopped 2 days prior then went manual? Shouldn’t there be a reason for the award in daily coverage?

Puddytatt

They run manual starting 8am base time 2 days prior. You can still PCS until 7am Atlanta time PCS run 1 day prior. The 2 coverages potentially overlap. But there should be a reason on the trip coverage for whoever picked it up if it isn't a RES assignment or management trip buy.

RunFast

It was well after 7 am ATL time 1 day prior. No reason given.

acl65pilot

Its two issues. Its the two day prior trip coverage and they are allowed to stop a ACROS call anytime they want.

Like most things this there was a lot of opportunity here that was missed. This list is quite long for rotation coverage improvements.

Since SLC was the only council that split their vote on this, here is the Comm they put out yesterday.

June 30, 2023

23.M.7 Commentary



Chairman’s Perspective

I was one of the 8 who voted NO, in opposition to the proposed settlement. Council 81 was the only council in which the reps split their votes. This is why we are choosing this format for the Council 81 Update, so each of us can explain our perspectives to you.



I wanted to start with a very brief history on how we got to where we are with 23.M.7 before the MEC’s most recent grievance settlement/contractual modification. In October 2020 Pete was serving as the captain rep, and I was the first officer rep. We heard loud and clear from the Council 81 pilots about the nuisance ARCOS calls that were occurring during the middle of the night and large batch sizes, sometimes for just one rotation. We gave direction along with the MEC to the Negotiating Committee to get guardrails for batch sizes during daytime and nighttime hours, along with pay penalties if those batch sizes were violated. Those protections were part of LOA 20-04, which was ratified by 85.4% of the Council 81 pilots the day before Thanksgiving, November 25, 2020. With the signing of the PWA on March 2, 2023, those protections became part of Section 23.Z.



It has been about 15 months since the company has made it a course of business to use 23.M.7 to cover rotations outside of the trip coverage sequences 23.N and 23.O that are contractually agreed to. Because of this we filed a grievance and ultimately provided direction to attempt to resolve the 23.M.7 debacle and stop the company from using it as a normal relief valve. This was wrapped up as a grievance settlement under which the MEC Policy Manual allows a grievance to be resolved without the MEC’s support or negotiations. Make no mistake that this was a negotiation where we provided direction, a redirection and ultimately provided cover/approval of the supposal.



At times it was quite hard to follow what was transpiring when we were in Tempe for our MEC meeting. First, it was an MOU, then it was a grievance settlement. Contractual language was being changed, then wait, not changed, just reinterpreted, and an in-kind settlement, therefore no vote. The point is the cheese was being moved and those of us with a valid concern were begging the admin and scheduling chair to pump the brakes on this and try to come to a better solution.



Without putting words in the supporter’s mouths, it was my opinion that everyone felt that this was not the best outcome, but they felt that since this was so far down the road that we had no choice but to accept it for fear the outcome would be worse in the hands of an arbitrator. I cried foul and parted with those that I normally agree with because it is about the issues and what is best for the pilot group, not what voting block you are part of on the MEC. I still contend that this significantly changes our PWA and creates new ground in the grievance process regarding where and how language is used and/or is changed. I believe this should have gone to MEMRAT. I discussed the idea with some reps, just to be clear we never had an agreement with final legal language before the MEC. Just a supposal and what direction to settle this grievance. The opportunity for us to vote for MEMRAT was never given to the MEC. If it were, for discussions sake, the threshold to send it out would have required a super majority of 12 votes in favor and given the 9-8 vote there was not enough support for that. Some may argue that there is precedence to NOT send this to MEMRAT, and that the language is NOT changed only that the ARCOS work group agreed to unlimited batch sizes. I will call this what it is, schematics. The net result is a significant change to YOU the line pilots and you MUST have the final say. Here is my recap.



Last month at the MEC meeting in Tempe, a 23.M.7 grievance settlement proposal was presented to the MEC. On a vote of 9-8 the MEC elected to accept the settlement proposal or supposal if you will. As most of you know by now, the final language was announced on Monday after several weeks of back-and-forth negotiations and became effective immediately.



From my personal perspective the promise to not use 23.M.7 outside of 8-hours to report does little to protect the abrogation of seniority, nor does it offer a logical modification to the existing process. The times I have been called for an Inverse Assignment (IA) have all been within 8-hours to report, so I don’t see this as a win for the pilot group. Add to that the “exception” language that allows the Company to use 23.M.7 outside of 8-hours, and we are right back to where we are now. Additionally, this agreement allows the company to control batch sizes according to their interpretation of “unlimited” which translates to “size at our discretion.” It does not put guardrails in place when a rotation must be covered once it is known, force the company to cover all known rotations at once, or put any limit on the number of rotations covered in each callout. Simply put, the settlement gives away all the work we have done with no additional protections and limits in return. Succinctly, it turns the entire process over to the company.



For example, this is how a callout could go for one or more rotations (for pilots with a qualified slip in):

-All pilots in the category get a WS call

-All qualified pilots in the seat companywide get an Out of Base WS call

-All pilots in the category get a GS call

-All instructors in the seat get a GS call

-All pilots in the company get an Out of Base GS call and so on down the coverage list.



My point is that when you have no batch size limits everyone is getting blanket call blasted for rotations, they have no chance of holding. It does run the list quicker, but it creates a lot of nuisances for the pilot group even if you have Auto Accept selected but NOT Auto Acknowledge. There are better solutions that were disregarded. This settlement fails to advance the agenda of the Delta pilots while giving away improvements we got in concessionary bargaining during COVID.



Within minutes of the settlement announcement on Monday, we started receiving emails from Council 81 pilots asking what the MEC was thinking by agreeing to this. We have also heard from a pilot who received three calls on Tuesday with batch sizes ranging from 150 to 250 and no chance of getting any of the trips. On Wednesday we received an ACROS screenshot from a pilot who was called for an out of base trip in SLC, yet on the status tab it showed the pilot as “Not Eligible” for the trip. The pilot wanted to know why he was called. Yet another shortcoming of this system, and another nuisance call.



Being able to rank order your preferences in PCS and set up auto-accept and auto-acknowledge sounds good, but the reality is that you may get something you do not want, while a pilot junior to you gets a more desirable trip. Why? Because after the 2200 ET PCS run, Crew Scheduling has the ability to chop up trips so that more pilots are eligible to cover them. You can see this by looking at open time just before the 2200 ET PCS run. Then when you wake up in the morning look at the trip coverage and you will see rotations that were created during the night. Additionally, DBMS lacks the templates we have wanted for a decade that would truly let a pilot indicate the number of rotations they want to fly. Items like “landings in” or specific parameters that make it a lot easier to know that when you get a call it is for something you really want. Many of these cannot be done in DMBS due to functionality and because of this we limited ACROS for logical reasons. We have gone back to brick one with this settlement.



Not only are batch sizes eliminated on the high end, but also the low end. Meaning, Crew Scheduling can just wait until the 8-hour prior to report point, and then pull the pin on the hand grenade and yell “fire in the hole” by invoking 23.M.7 and the IA process via the Crew Notification System. When that happens, IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT YOUR PCS or ARCOS SETTINGS ARE. EVERYONE WHO HAS THEIR PHONE ON IS CALLED!



There were many solutions that were half measures that got us to a place that we could all accept, and I promoted some of them to the MEC for months. If we look at what BOTH SIDES agreed to with rotations becoming proffers for next day flying where previously WS were not proffers, combined with batch sizes that were honestly too small, and then penalties for batch size violations it created a perfect storm. The problem is the company chose to start using a section of the PWA that even in our two major meltdown IROPS last decade they did not use. They opted to just blow off everything they had agreed to, refused to come to the MEC and work the issue together, which could have resulted in an agreement that worked better for all parties. They chose the nuclear option, disregarded the coverage steps in the PWA and went about their business. This costs many pilots a lot of premium pay, because even if the correct pilot was later identified, they only get single pay.



This is concerning for many reasons:



First, they agreed to the language in LOA 20-04 and then decided it did not work for them, so they just decided to invoke 23.M.7 as a normal course of business.



Second, there was no real work by our scheduling chair during the grievance process to come to any other solution than the one we have, constantly refuting any ideas that any of us offered to come to a more logical point.



Third, it is a bad sign the Company will not negotiate with us and chose the nuclear option. What is the next part of the PWA they do not like that they will just refuse to comply with? Perhaps they rescind Payback Day redemption even though both parties agreed to the process, because it reduces the number of reserves available towards the end of the month.



My disapproval of this goes far beyond just the words in the settlement agreement. It is the process, how the company just chose to not follow a part of the PWA that they had for decades, and in the end got an agreement from us that in my opinion makes it very concerning how we will conduct business going forward. Bad behavior should not be rewarded with having full authority to cover a rotation with no protections. That is what we got. It is my hope that this is a one-off and the company under our new SVP of Flight Ops gets back to a good relationship of problem solving with agreements that address the issues of both parties and make the solutions beneficial for everyone, as he stated is his desire in his introduction memo last week. We used to do that years ago, and we must get back to this process. When we worked as partners the value created between Section 6s was amazing. LOA 14-01 the FAR 117 LOA created about 50 million in value in 2014 and in today’s dollars is likely worth hundreds of millions of dollars. You, the Delta Pilots, deserve to see improvements at every opportunity and not have hard fought gains taken away by grievance settlements that do not advance our agenda. It is my hope that under our new SVP we can reengage on the batch sizes and coverage requirements and codify them in the PWA. In that light I want their actions to be so loud that we cannot hear the SVP’s words.



Vice Chairman’s Perspective

Why I voted for the 23.M.7 Grievance Settlement

Bear with me, it necessitates an explanation of the RLA contract grievance process. When the Company does not follow the contract in the way we feel it is intended, we inform them that we disagree with their use of the contract in the form of a “grievance.” They then have three choices:

1. They can return to compliance, and we would withdraw the grievance, or
2. They can disagree with our grievance and then we follow the RLA’s grievance process.

The grievance process:

Grievances can be settled in one of two ways.

1. The Company can offer a settlement and we can choose to accept it or not—a “settle out of court” situation (more on that in a moment), or
2. They can let the process take its course and let the grievance board(s) make the decision. There are two boards that determine who is right or wrong. The first is a four-member board. If their vote is tied at 2–2, then it is moved up to the five-member board. The decision of the board is final and binding with prejudice and creates legal standing (meaning we can’t appeal it).

Now let’s talk settlements

The MEC policy manual dictates that all settlements are handled on the MEC administrator level. The MEC reps currently don’t get involved until the end to approve or disapprove. If enough MEC members want to change that in the policy manual and bring the reps in on the settlement agreement process, that is a conversation that I am happy to have. Just because we have always done it one way doesn’t mean that is the best way to do it. Settlements, according to the RLA, are not a negotiation. It can be, if the Company chooses to engage in that manner, but the RLA does not mandate that they negotiate at all. So, their offer can and most likely is take-it-or-leave-it. I’ve been asked why this wasn’t sent to MEMRAT. As far as I know a grievance settlement has never gone to MEMRAT. This is representative governance. The MEMRAT is used in certain instances to offer a checks and balance. A Rep at any point could make a motion to send it to MEMRAT, and no Rep did that in this case. And I agree this does not warrant it.



My decision process

I weighed all the options of the grievance process. I saw the offer on the table and compared it to the worst-case scenario of losing in court. It was my opinion that if we had rejected this offer, the Company would have said, “we’ll see you in court” and not negotiate. Based on advice from the experts (SMEs, lawyers, admin) I didn’t believe that we would win in court. And losing in court would be worse than the settlement. Because losing in court would give the Company contractual grounds to stand on to unlimited use of 23.M.7 whenever they want as much as they want. And that I could not stomach. It’s not a perfect scenario, I get that, but it’s better than the alternative of losing in court. It all came down to unlimited batch sizes vs. unlimited 23.M.7, I chose to stop the unlimited use of 23.M.7.



So now what?

Now we must adjust our behavior a bit when it comes to green slips. There are a lot of strategies. I would recommend consulting the Scheduling Reference Handbook that we publish HERE or the Scheduling Alert found HERE. I plan on using auto-acknowledge but not auto-accept, so that when they eventually call me, I know that I am for sure #1 in line to get a GS. I know that it means we won’t get to be very picky as to what GS’s we take. We can work to improve the refinement protocols on iCrew so that we won’t get calls for GS’s we don’t want to fly.
Secretary-Treasurer’s Perspective

23.M.7. What does it say?



A Crew Scheduler may deviate from the sequences under Section 23 N or O when, in their judgment, it is necessary to do so in order to maintain schedule integrity. In such event, the pilot who would otherwise have been awarded/assigned the rotation will receive pay and credit (or if applicable, single pay, no credit) for the scheduled value of the rotation.



Pretty squishy . . . one could conclude that outside the eight-hour 23.M.7 leash we just agreed to, all a scheduler must do is say, “it was my judgment” and they are off to the scheduling races.



But you ask, we must have received something in return for this consequential agreement? Well, in my opinion, we didn’t receive much. As I see it, we now have a weak (and long) eight-hour 23.M.7 timeframe unless the Company needs to violate that for “operational necessity” with our approval. That’s all we got. Oh, and we gave up the batch sizes we fought for—more on that later.



The direction at the March MEC meeting in Atlanta was to provide guardrails for using 23.M.7. Instead, we pulled the guardrails and drove off the cliff. In my opinion, we codified the Company’s current practice of using 23.M.7, did not provide any guardrails, and failed to provide a definition of what a scheduler’s “judgment” entails.



I guess the “win” would be that we solidified a deal outside of arbitration. Looking at what we just agreed to, I am not sure an arbitration loss could be worse.



Before I look forward, let’s look backward regarding batch sizes. Remember when you got phone calls in the middle of the night for a GS you had absolutely no chance of getting? Well, that was due to the “zero batch size” rule for assigning GSs. Essentially, Scheduling could shotgun the GS proffers out to every pilot who expressed an interest. So, if you are junior in category, and had no chance of ever getting that GS because there are 50 guys above you, you got called anyway.



We fought to decrease the batch size resulting in LOA 20-04. LOA 20-04 provided batch-size parameters depending on the time of day and associated penalties for violations. We just eliminated those parameters. If you like getting GS calls at 2 a.m. for a GS you are never going to get, you are going to love this deal. And if you are saying, “they won’t do that,” please see the below image from 26 Jun 2023. That is exactly what they just did.
Let’s talk about that for a minute. You now have two choices regarding GSs with the “new and improved zero batch size”—neither of which are good.

1. Put in all your qualifiers (auto ack, block time, report time, etc.) and “get what you get” with limited ability to rack and stack what trip you would want.
   
   or
   
2. Don’t put in any qualifiers and get multiple nuisance calls for trips you probably won’t get but at least you had the opportunity to rack and stack your choices.

I normally think ALPA negotiates successfully against the Company. In this instance, I think we failed. I did not have a vote on this, but I would have voted NO.

Linky for full Com

Bucking Bar

We were right. Why did we concede?

Where in that comm is the fact that ALL Scheduling Chairman, ALL MEC Chairman and ALL Negotiating Committee Chairmen and even the company initially agreed that this was an abuse of 23 M. 7.? It would seem the contract interpretation was fine, for a long time, negotiated, agreed, past practice ... I am not even sure what was disputed.

(for new folks, IA was only ever used within 2 hours which has been the accepted response for Short Call and even then, rarely. Most often operationally critical <30 minutes, created by a misconnect, mechanical or sick - not just a day before sick call or mid-rotation 04:30 show nobody wants to pick up)

Eight hours? Nearly an entire reset period before the duty period? How do multiple calls at 2:40 am promote safety? Why does trip coverage coincide with shift change? Why should trip coverage coincide with anything but the need to cover the trip? At a higher level, doesn't operational integrity and service to our customers matter more than coverage gamesmanship?

What is next? Taking away vacations? Similar language. Why not?

bugman61

Have you seen the current scheduling committee chairman say it was a violation? His name was not on the original letter.

Also, not saying I agree, but the company would probably differentiate the original mass 23.M.7. event from the more “ad-hoc” usage they have had recently.

Bucking Bar

Was Shawn a part of the Administration that filed a grievance? Is he loyal to the administration that filed the grievance? My best guess is "yes."

Typically Contract Admin and the MEC Chairman will not file a grievance if the Scheduling Chairman does not share the opinion of Contract Admin. If a Committee Chair and CA do not agree, the Chairman of that committee typically resigns or is removed. Everyone needs to be unified.