Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
12-09-2013, 05:45 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Posts: 272
I also agree, at this time I would only pursue waivers to 117 that directly conflict with Delta PWA and do not uphold the spirit of 117 in regards to assuring proper rest.
12-09-2013, 05:49 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 488
IThis is a legal interpretation of our PWA as provided by the MEC.
At times the PWA and the FARS can be more restrictive, this occurs throughout the PWA in just about any section.
If our current PWA gives us a 9-hour response time to acknowledge a call from scheduling, there is nothing in 117 that precludes that 9-hour response time.
The company is attempting to redefine the response time as 2-hour when on long-call but that is clearly contradictory to the PWA and the guidance provided in WSC.
It is inconvenient for scheduling to have to provide 19 hours notice to a long call pilot but that is the result of the restrictions in the PWA (9 hours to respond/schedule check) and the restrictions in FAR 117 (10 hours rest prior to a report).
At times the PWA and the FARS can be more restrictive, this occurs throughout the PWA in just about any section.
If our current PWA gives us a 9-hour response time to acknowledge a call from scheduling, there is nothing in 117 that precludes that 9-hour response time.
The company is attempting to redefine the response time as 2-hour when on long-call but that is clearly contradictory to the PWA and the guidance provided in WSC.
It is inconvenient for scheduling to have to provide 19 hours notice to a long call pilot but that is the result of the restrictions in the PWA (9 hours to respond/schedule check) and the restrictions in FAR 117 (10 hours rest prior to a report).
Yep. Why does our 9 hour response time go "poof" while the -able to report in 12- remains by default. Seems there would be a required negotiation here.
12-09-2013, 05:55 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Posts: 272
Not saying our contract has the same force as law or that law doesn't take precedence.
But why does the -able to report in 12/respond in 2 get to survive intact for the company while we are forced to answer within 2, losing our contractual benefit (yes their interpretation meets the law, but does that mean they automatically get to impose it without negotiations or change reference the benefit of our current ability to take 9 hours?). -EDIT: georgetg has good summary of the conflict introduced.- If one doesn't acknowledge until 3 prior, you are still abiding by a clause in our RLA negotiated contract (not both tho) but you can't work the trip (due to far's), and by not working the trip you are meeting the FAR's. They're going to need alot more short call peeps.
How about extending long call to accomodate more time to respond along with the 10 hr far? Or any other type of negotiated solution, whether arrived at via mediation or other. I am guessing that the company wanted some negotiations on 117. EDIT: daldude came up with another perfectly viable solution (well, other than dealing with the FAA to get it).
Thats more the meat and potatoes about it. Does someone get to force their will regarding the now contradictory clauses, or will it have to be negotiated. I am hoping that the reason we got that memo is that this issue (or something) was a sticking point in the 117 negotiations and that all reserves are not going to end up on 2 hour short call contact (check's phrase) while on long call because dalpa didn't fight to somehow address our 3 hour benefit that is in our contract.
And I see your confusion in my post after re-reading a couple of times. And some misunderstanding on my own part. I'll blame it on multiple calls for dinner and kids......
On another note: Didn't sd's letter state that a pilot could voluntarily contact the company without breaking rest? If so, why can't one voluntarily acknowledge a legally assigned trip the same way?
Looks like January is shaping up to be a month to avoid dipping your foot in the reserve pool.
But why does the -able to report in 12/respond in 2 get to survive intact for the company while we are forced to answer within 2, losing our contractual benefit (yes their interpretation meets the law, but does that mean they automatically get to impose it without negotiations or change reference the benefit of our current ability to take 9 hours?). -EDIT: georgetg has good summary of the conflict introduced.- If one doesn't acknowledge until 3 prior, you are still abiding by a clause in our RLA negotiated contract (not both tho) but you can't work the trip (due to far's), and by not working the trip you are meeting the FAR's. They're going to need alot more short call peeps.
How about extending long call to accomodate more time to respond along with the 10 hr far? Or any other type of negotiated solution, whether arrived at via mediation or other. I am guessing that the company wanted some negotiations on 117. EDIT: daldude came up with another perfectly viable solution (well, other than dealing with the FAA to get it). Thats more the meat and potatoes about it. Does someone get to force their will regarding the now contradictory clauses, or will it have to be negotiated. I am hoping that the reason we got that memo is that this issue (or something) was a sticking point in the 117 negotiations and that all reserves are not going to end up on 2 hour short call contact (check's phrase) while on long call because dalpa didn't fight to somehow address our 3 hour benefit that is in our contract.
And I see your confusion in my post after re-reading a couple of times. And some misunderstanding on my own part. I'll blame it on multiple calls for dinner and kids......
On another note: Didn't sd's letter state that a pilot could voluntarily contact the company without breaking rest? If so, why can't one voluntarily acknowledge a legally assigned trip the same way?
Looks like January is shaping up to be a month to avoid dipping your foot in the reserve pool.
We do not want more short calls what we want is the status quo in this case. I believe the key is a waiver using your idea above concerning voluntary acknowledgement. If the FAA will agree, I believe Delta will immediately agree since they receive zero benefit from the 2 hour acknowledgement regarding cost or efficiency.
12-09-2013, 06:20 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: M88 B
Posts: 399
Anybody know if there is transportation from the terminal to the ALPA meeting tomorrow? I will have a few hours around lunch time and thought about checking out the MEC chairman debate.
12-09-2013, 06:40 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Verifying sick calls reminds me of being at a regional.
At my particular regional they got very nasty about it. I flew with a Captain who surpassed the 4 allowable sick calls in a year mark and was put on termination warning. The only problem was he was hospitalized with a chronic condition and all the paperwork was in but someone missed it. Anyways, they called him to HQ for a big beat down meeting, he got a labor lawyer, they weren't ready for that one. The end result was a lawsuit for harassment.
Helps when a friend of the family is a labor lawyer.
At my particular regional they got very nasty about it. I flew with a Captain who surpassed the 4 allowable sick calls in a year mark and was put on termination warning. The only problem was he was hospitalized with a chronic condition and all the paperwork was in but someone missed it. Anyways, they called him to HQ for a big beat down meeting, he got a labor lawyer, they weren't ready for that one. The end result was a lawsuit for harassment.
Helps when a friend of the family is a labor lawyer.
12-09-2013, 06:42 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
I think you're looking at the wrong aspect of the rule you cite...
The 3-hour prior notification is a result of a rolling 9-hour response time to a notification from scheduling, from When Scheduling Calls:
[...]
This is a legal interpretation of our PWA as provided by the MEC.
At times the PWA and the FARS can be more restrictive, this occurs throughout the PWA in just about any section.
If our current PWA gives us a 9-hour response time to acknowledge a call from scheduling, there is nothing in 117 that precludes that 9-hour response time.
The company is attempting to redefine the response time as 2-hour when on long-call but that is clearly contradictory to the PWA and the guidance provided in WSC.
It is inconvenient for scheduling to have to provide 19 hours notice to a long call pilot but that is the result of the restrictions in the PWA (9 hours to respond/schedule check) and the restrictions in FAR 117 (10 hours rest prior to a report).
At any rate an email memo from a Delta SVP can't change our contract.
In reality Delta holds an even larger competitive advantage vs our peers because as Mgmt has pointed out much of what is in 117 matches our current PWA whereas some of our competitive set are being forced to adjust their staffing/scheduling to comply with the new FARs.
The 3-hour prior notification is a result of a rolling 9-hour response time to a notification from scheduling, from When Scheduling Calls:
[...]
This is a legal interpretation of our PWA as provided by the MEC.
At times the PWA and the FARS can be more restrictive, this occurs throughout the PWA in just about any section.
If our current PWA gives us a 9-hour response time to acknowledge a call from scheduling, there is nothing in 117 that precludes that 9-hour response time.
The company is attempting to redefine the response time as 2-hour when on long-call but that is clearly contradictory to the PWA and the guidance provided in WSC.
It is inconvenient for scheduling to have to provide 19 hours notice to a long call pilot but that is the result of the restrictions in the PWA (9 hours to respond/schedule check) and the restrictions in FAR 117 (10 hours rest prior to a report).
At any rate an email memo from a Delta SVP can't change our contract.
In reality Delta holds an even larger competitive advantage vs our peers because as Mgmt has pointed out much of what is in 117 matches our current PWA whereas some of our competitive set are being forced to adjust their staffing/scheduling to comply with the new FARs.
Take a look at 23.S.5.a. What do you think it means?
Take a look at 23.S.5.g.2.b. I think that's the section which lets you acknowledge up to 3 hours prior to show.
Now, look just above, at 23.S.5.g.2.a, and again at 23.S.5.a, and tell me how they work together.
Does the company have the right, currently, to expect you to answer your phone anytime (which would be a big surprise to all of us)? Who chooses whether the assignment and acknowledgment take place electronically, or via phone?
12-09-2013, 06:49 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Newk, 36-14?
Nice.
Nice.
12-09-2013, 06:50 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
I think I just blew out most of my brain on this 117 Reserve acknowledgment issue. And it's just the tip of the iceberg.
I'll try to lurk and better understand the issues.
I'll try to lurk and better understand the issues.
12-09-2013, 07:14 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Capt
Posts: 2,049
12-09-2013, 07:21 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Thanks, George. I can't cut-and-paste it, but I was looking at the actual contract language.
Take a look at 23.S.5.a. What do you think it means?
Take a look at 23.S.5.g.2.b. I think that's the section which lets you acknowledge up to 3 hours prior to show.
Now, look just above, at 23.S.5.g.2.a, and again at 23.S.5.a, and tell me how they work together.
Does the company have the right, currently, to expect you to answer your phone anytime (which would be a big surprise to all of us)? Who chooses whether the assignment and acknowledgment take place electronically, or via phone?
Take a look at 23.S.5.a. What do you think it means?
Take a look at 23.S.5.g.2.b. I think that's the section which lets you acknowledge up to 3 hours prior to show.
Now, look just above, at 23.S.5.g.2.a, and again at 23.S.5.a, and tell me how they work together.
Does the company have the right, currently, to expect you to answer your phone anytime (which would be a big surprise to all of us)? Who chooses whether the assignment and acknowledgment take place electronically, or via phone?
When in doubt, I find the Transition Working Group 09-10.
Long Call
Crew Scheduling will attempt to notify (via a phone call) a long call pilot of a rotation, short call
period or rest period that has been placed on his schedule (see Required Schedule Checks below
for exceptions to this). The pilot must acknowledge this assignment:
• no later than three hours prior to scheduled report for a rotation,
• no later than one hour prior to scheduled start of a short call period, or
• no later than six hours after the start of a rest period. (See Section 23 S. 5.g. and 6.b.)
He can acknowledge the assignment via DBMS, a phone call to Crew Scheduling, or via VRU. If
a pilot acknowledges his assignment/award via DBMS or VRU, Crew Scheduling will not
contact the pilot by phone.
A duty free period (free of responsibility for contact) will begin 12 hours prior to report for a
rotation, and 10 hours prior to the start of a short call period.
As long as a pilot is contactable via at least one of the numbers listed in DBMS, then he will not
have to check his schedule during routine long call days. As long as Crew Scheduling has not
called one of those numbers, his 12-hour leash is always pushing out in front of the current time.
If a long call pilot desires to be out of contact entirely for periods of time (sleeping without
interruption, golfing without a cell phone, etc.), then he must check his schedule (or messages) at
least every nine hours. This ensures that he can acknowledge no later than three hours prior to
any rotation, one hour prior to start of a short call or six hours after the start of a rest period that
might have been assigned while he was out of contact.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
