sinca3

I wish ALPA thought that way, but alas they say per the survey we want to work more hours!?!?!?

ExAF

OOOOOPS....does that mean 80KnotsClamp is going to get to "enjoy" that 32/7 after all??????

Bucking Bar

Depends on how much he likes coffee from the airplane I guess.

Roadkill

Herkflyer,
you continuously misunderstand the issue of 99 hours (reserve ALV+15).
No one is flying to 99 hours... it it the LIMITING FACTOR EXTENSION to ALV+15 that is critical. Before company was limited to approx 68 hours max on reserves, and had to staff for that. NOW THEY ARE NOT-- They are limited only to ALV+15, so they can now STAFF FOR APPROX 50% more flying by reserves.

--- DURING HEAVY MONTHS.
--- WHEN NEEDED
--- No one is saying reserves are flying to 99, we are saying the critical driving # that forced company to staff reserves for worst case at 68 hours has now been extended to ALV+15, and the removal of this limfac
WHETHER ANYONE REALLY FLIES THERE OR NOT
is what is reducing the company's need to staff.

In short you are completely 100% wrong in your understanding of this productivity gain. Either you are intentional in your misdirection, or you haven't really thought about it, or you are unable to understand limiting factors and driving factors in mathematical analysis. I'm starting to think you DO understand this and are intentionally attempting to mislead others... if not, please take some time to think through the concept of limiting factors driving staffing for RESERVES (Worst case, when stuff goes wrong, backup pilots), not continued actual use.

Spudhauler

Roadkill, aren't there still provisions that require the company to add reserves if the average hours flown gets beyond a certain point? In other words, if the average reserve is flying 68 hours, as used in your post and meant for example only, wouldn't the company be required to add reserves to that category?

johnso29

Yes. If a category experience reserves flying an average of 60 hours per month, then reserves must be added. Is that an annual average? IDK. The point of contention, as I understand it, would be that the new rules give the company more flexibility in the busy months. And since they can push reserves who are above 68 hours(but below reserve guarantee or are yet to be FULL) to ALV+15, it allows them to get away with less reserves. Is that the case thus far? IDK.

The Cavalier

Provisions or not, if the old rules were in place I would be with family tomorrow eating turkey instead of sitting short call. Roadkill is correct, the worst consequence of the new rule is that pilots can be scheduled against their will over ALV not that a pilot is going to fly up to ALV+15 every month. The amount you go over the ALV is not the issue. Being scheduled 1 minute over ALV can have the same consequence in many instances as being scheduled 15 hours over ALV. Besides the lost time off if the pilot chose to take it, it has significant staffing consequences.

johnso29

To be posted next week. More M88 positions with 320 positions as well. Looks like the 320 and M88 will be picking up the 717 slack cause by delivery delays.

PilotFrog

Are we really going to be given a tablet that has a operating system that is about to be killed and cannot be upgraded to full windows like the Surface Pro? Looks like MSFT pulled a fast one on DAL.

Microsoft ready to kill Windows RT | Technology | theguardian.com

80ktsClamp

Ah, so no weekly flight time limit anymore?

The trip got me a 10 hours more pay for only one more day worked (had a sub 19 hour 4-day and this is a 29 hour 5-day). The first day is long but it's easy after that... and I get 23 hours in CUN on NYE/NYD.