Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
I'm not sure but with UAL now trading over 46 and not performing as good as DAL I could easily see DAL up over 40 in the next six months or less.
UAL: Summary for United Continental Holdings- Yahoo! Finance
UAL: Summary for United Continental Holdings- Yahoo! Finance
Perhaps. However, take a look at the current market caps of both companies.
Threes in. Ironing a shirt at midnight and realizing I'm down to 6 or 7 hours of sleep (if I fall asleep RIGHT then) blows. The intent of the new rules is to provide a more rested, alert pilot. It's clear to me what 8 hours of sleep means.
The DPA question is answered for me. The scales have decisively tipped out of their favor because of this suit. I wanted to believe but they just keep shooting themselves in the foot.
Not sure what that has to do with anything, but DAL's earnings and growth seem to be significantly higher than UAL's. LUV is the outlier imho... for some strange reason, and I am guessing it is the consistency of earnings, but it could be that they have been paying a dividend for the entire time that the legacies were struggling with BK... people pay up for LUV. Their multiple is double that of anybody else's. I don't have the guts to do it, because I am a permabull I guess, but I wouldn't be surprised to see short positions on LUV growing in the next few years as the legacies get their feet back under them. Jack is probably right that 40 is attainable for DAL, but UAL and AAL are gonna be interesting too... DYODD....
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,614
Sailing is generally lock step with the MEC. But your point is taken... what he posts here is certainly nothing official (at least not officially ).
I did email my reps when I first found out about this (when an email from an SLC rep was posted on another forum). I exchanged multiple emails with all four of my reps. Three of the four seemed to be too busy playing politician to directly answer my concerns. Lots of dancing around it, but no direct answers from the three. However, I did speak to one of them on the phone after he indicated via email that he agreed with me and wanted to call me. This particular rep gets it. He said he was going to call the SLC rep, presumably to straighten him out. I have no idea whether that happened or not.
During the email exchange with my reps, the chairman of the scheduling committee got copied in on it. He wrote me and was crystal clear that his view is the 8 hour sleep opportunity rule means 8 hours behind the door. If the chairman of the scheduling committee is telling people this, then I'm pretty sure it is (at least at this time) the official interpretation of the MEC. And since that interpretation is a clear violation of the FAR, I decided to do what I could to bring this issue to light. So here I am. Hopefully, by shining a bright light on this, some of the cockroaches will have to scatter for the shadows and all that will be left is the truth.
I did email my reps when I first found out about this (when an email from an SLC rep was posted on another forum). I exchanged multiple emails with all four of my reps. Three of the four seemed to be too busy playing politician to directly answer my concerns. Lots of dancing around it, but no direct answers from the three. However, I did speak to one of them on the phone after he indicated via email that he agreed with me and wanted to call me. This particular rep gets it. He said he was going to call the SLC rep, presumably to straighten him out. I have no idea whether that happened or not.
During the email exchange with my reps, the chairman of the scheduling committee got copied in on it. He wrote me and was crystal clear that his view is the 8 hour sleep opportunity rule means 8 hours behind the door. If the chairman of the scheduling committee is telling people this, then I'm pretty sure it is (at least at this time) the official interpretation of the MEC. And since that interpretation is a clear violation of the FAR, I decided to do what I could to bring this issue to light. So here I am. Hopefully, by shining a bright light on this, some of the cockroaches will have to scatter for the shadows and all that will be left is the truth.
Here is the FAA,s first word on the subject.
Carriers will be required to provide their crew with a 10-hour rest opportunityprior to commencing a duty period that includes flying. While the 10-rest period may include the amount of time it takes to get to or from a flightcrew member's house or hotel room, the actual amount of time required for a sleep opportunity may not be reduced
below 8 hours. In addition, the length of continuous time off during a 7-day period has been extended from 24 hours under the existing rules to 30 hours. Additional time off is required for individuals whose internal clock may be off because of flipping back and
forth between different time zones.
The fact that the FAA clarified the above to mean 10 hours off but not less then 8 hours in the room is not DALPA's fault.
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: 7ER Capt
Posts: 461
I don't accept less than 9hrs "behind the door". That gives me and my crew a half hour to get ready for bed and a half hour to get ready for work. That gives one a minimum of 8hrs sleep.
I did that before 117 and I'll do that now.
If my reps are not on board with this, they are not "scheduling with safety... period. I'll be contacting my reps today.
I don't see where it says "behind the door". Sleep is sleep. Not getting ready for bed... not getting ready to go to work.
I don't accept less than 9hrs "behind the door". That gives me and my crew a half hour to get ready for bed and a half hour to get ready for work. That gives one a minimum of 8hrs sleep.
I did that before 117 and I'll do that now.
If my reps are not on board with this, they are not "scheduling with safety... period. I'll be contacting my reps today.
I don't accept less than 9hrs "behind the door". That gives me and my crew a half hour to get ready for bed and a half hour to get ready for work. That gives one a minimum of 8hrs sleep.
I did that before 117 and I'll do that now.
If my reps are not on board with this, they are not "scheduling with safety... period. I'll be contacting my reps today.
Seriously, I am glad there are people like you making an effort to get this right and ensure it functions for it's intended purpose. That is, to help pilots get the rest they need and be overall safer behind the controls as a result. Whatever is practiced at the beginning of FAR 117 implementation will be become the new "precedent" and legal benchmark for airline scheduling now and into the future. Beyond the safety aspect, it would be nice to know pilots are able to live happy, healthy lives, getting enough daily restorative sleep so they don't end a trip feeling like a zombie.
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,614
I don't see where it says "behind the door". Sleep is sleep. Not getting ready for bed... not getting ready to go to work.
I don't accept less than 9hrs "behind the door". That gives me and my crew a half hour to get ready for bed and a half hour to get ready for work. That gives one a minimum of 8hrs sleep.
I did that before 117 and I'll do that now.
If my reps are not on board with this, they are not "scheduling with safety... period. I'll be contacting my reps today.
I don't accept less than 9hrs "behind the door". That gives me and my crew a half hour to get ready for bed and a half hour to get ready for work. That gives one a minimum of 8hrs sleep.
I did that before 117 and I'll do that now.
If my reps are not on board with this, they are not "scheduling with safety... period. I'll be contacting my reps today.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post