Originally Posted by Big E 757

I think if DALPA would have come out and said, " Fly the contract, and this is what the contract requires us to do, and this is what we are not required to do", we would have had our heads handed to us by the first court Delta called.

We had to read between the lines, there were signals in the DALPA communications telling us they had our back, but they couldn't come right out and say ANYTHING suggesting that we should do anything other than what we were currently doing. If you are a commuter and want to know what your assignment is immediately so you can plan your commute, like a lot of us, they can't encourage you to stop doing that. If all of a sudden, everyone started acknowledging 3 hours prior, Delta would have been able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was a job action. They have reams of data on sick calls, and I'm sure they would have reams of data on reserve assignments and verification times pre and post FAR 117 within 3 hours.

The problem isn't with how DALPA handled this situation, they couldn't do anything more than tell us they would help us if a problem came up. The problem, by virtue of DALPA's historically cozy relationship with management, was that we didn't trust them. We didn't believe they would protect us or go to bat for us. Very few guys were willing to take one for the team if it was possible our team already agreed to throw the game. In other words, 1: A lack of unity, and 2: A concern over how behind us our union was going to be, are the issues everyone is arguing over. I think DALPA did all they could with the printed word, however, we have a long way to go if we are going to trust them to have our interests and needs as their first priority.

Thank you to everyone who "leaned into the pitch". Hopefully the next batter doesn't hit into a double play. And Go Cubbies!

E

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

so I did a 16.14 cr 3-day last week. when it was all said and done it paid 22.07 but not sure why.

Day 2 was to be 9.11 duty and 5.08 block. Ended at 14.36 and 6.40 block.

The overnight went down to 10 hours.

Next day instead of flying 5.42 i flew 1.42 with 2.0 deadhead getting done 1:30 earlier.

Some how 6 hours more was paid and the trip shows closed.

Ill take it and run but curious.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

s
o I did a 16.14 cr 3-day last week. when it was all said and done it paid 22.07 but not sure why.

Day 2 was to be 9.11 duty and 5.08 block. Ended at 14.36 and 6.40 block.

The overnight went down to 10 hours.

Next day instead of flying 5.42 i flew 1.42 with 2.0 deadhead getting done 1:30 earlier.

Some how 6 hours more was paid and the trip shows closed.

Ill take it and run but curious.

Originally Posted by TenYearsGone

On the other hand, I wish there were a way to ban these over 8 hour domestic days. I am beat. The efficiency might be good, but it makes for a real tiring day especially following a short layover, no crew meals and quick turn.

Originally Posted by Denny Crane

Disregard, I don't think you can go on 1 for 2 duty with FAR 117.........or can you because that sounds a lot like you did?

Denny

Originally Posted by Denny Crane

I don't think you can go on 1 for 2 duty with FAR 117

Originally Posted by newKnow

Hummm. Why does Delta have to file in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Georgia? What if the majority of their cancelled flights are in NYC? Also, are you saying that THAT federal court would handle the contract dispute and SD's memo?

Originally Posted by newKnow

Even if they do, what difference does it make? Are you saying the Court would immediately rule on the issue of interpreting what Delta did and not have to issue an injunction in the face of Delta canceling flights?

Originally Posted by newKnow

So, my opinion isn't based in law? Ok. If you say so, but I'm pretty sure this is the opinion the company would use as the framework for it's case against us. The good stuff begins on page 63. I think it's more pertinent than the case law you posted.

https://crewroom.alpa.org/ual/Deskto...cumentID=44168

Originally Posted by newKnow

I also guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on whether or not Delta would be able to fly their schedule with an increase of long call pilots getting PD's for assigned trips. From what I see, Delta is going to have trouble finding pilots for some flights already - especially for the summer. This is without any more of an increase of reserve pilots getting PD'ed from trips.

Originally Posted by newKnow

Finally, your fall back provision of not caring if Delta is successful in getting an injunction against us is problematic. What do you, mean "…so what?"

Originally Posted by GunshipGuy

From ALPA:

Part 117 & Scheduling: FAA Releases More Interpretations

The FAA has issued four new legal interpretations in response to independent requests to clarify the application of Part 117 to specific situations. These new interpretations address, among other things: checking of schedules during rest, fitness for duty certification, short-call reserve duty limits, flight-duty period (FDP) extensions, and split-duty assignments.

The McFadden interpretation clarifies that a contractual requirement to check a schedule terminates Part 117 rest at the time the contractual obligation begins, even if the schedule is not actually checked until later. That interpretation also clarifies that a “fitness for duty certification” made prior to learning of the need for an FDP extension is not “sufficient as a concurrence” in an extension because “a person cannot concur with something that he or she does not know about.” The FAA concluded the same rationale applied whether the extension needed was 30 minutes or less, or more than 30 minutes.

Originally Posted by sailingfun

Kind of hard to file a grievance on 1 May when the company has all ready agreed to pay the pilots effected and you have a agreement in principle and are working on final language.