Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-17-2014, 10:40 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Position: DL
Posts: 136
Oh yeah, how's that? (Btw that's a good/great thing if true.... But I don't know that I buy it to be true) If a city pair requires an MD-88 or 717 vs an RJ that's the aircraft that's going to fly it. The staffing issue is more whether the MD88 guys end up doing a 30 hr overnight vs a CDO.
05-17-2014, 10:47 AM
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Oh yeah, how's that? (Btw that's a good/great thing if true.... But I don't know that I buy it to be true) If a city pair requires an MD-88 or 717 vs an RJ that's the aircraft that's going to fly it. The staffing issue is more whether the MD88 guys end up doing a 30 hr overnight vs a CDO.
05-17-2014, 10:51 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
my guess is all the thirty hour layovers we do on the 717 and friends wjere we do the last flight in and first out are annoying them knowing if they could a cdo they dont have to oay two crews to do the overnight.
i would rather have two crews overnighting.
i would rather have two crews overnighting.
05-17-2014, 10:55 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
Here is the problem with your whole post.
This LOA could be voted in without Memrat by the MEC without the pilots having access to the details so as to make an evaluative decision.
The argument given by one of the Los Angeles reps for not having Memrat was that it would be logistically to difficult to and time consuming to explain the information behind months of nuanced negotiations. Furthermore, he stated that a pilot vote would likely be emotionally driven vs. thoughtful consideration of an analysis of the facts.
So, if the TA has been released to the LEC Reps, then why not the pilots? There could be several reasons why, none of them good.
In conclusion, ratifying a TA without Memrat that contains concessionary language, language that significantly alters OUR pilot working agreement, or contains conditional, restrictive or exclusionary language for ADG's, duty rigs and other pay events will have severe implications for our union representatives at all levels.
This LOA could be voted in without Memrat by the MEC without the pilots having access to the details so as to make an evaluative decision.
The argument given by one of the Los Angeles reps for not having Memrat was that it would be logistically to difficult to and time consuming to explain the information behind months of nuanced negotiations. Furthermore, he stated that a pilot vote would likely be emotionally driven vs. thoughtful consideration of an analysis of the facts.
So, if the TA has been released to the LEC Reps, then why not the pilots? There could be several reasons why, none of them good.
In conclusion, ratifying a TA without Memrat that contains concessionary language, language that significantly alters OUR pilot working agreement, or contains conditional, restrictive or exclusionary language for ADG's, duty rigs and other pay events will have severe implications for our union representatives at all levels.
There are several reasons why it was given to the reps, and most, if not all of them are good!
You haven't seen it so how do you know any of it is a concession? Listen, we all know you want everything yesterday... I want everything too, but as the old saying goes: "how do you eat an elephant?" "One bite at a time."
We've been eating a lot more frequently than any of our peers in the last 7 years, and I expect this LOA will be no different, or else I expect my reps to turn it down.
I don't need MEMRAT to secure a good deal, we have elected 19 extremely diverse pilots to weigh the merits. If they like the agreement, great..if they don't, that's fine also.
If they debate and decide the pilots would slam dunk a "Yes", why bother with the union expense (20-40k) and delayed implementation of the benefits of the agreement?
If they decide that it is worthy of a MEMRAT and an additional Monty's wait, then that's ok too. They are good people who were chosen by their peers to act on our behalf.
Don't like your reps ability to make thoughtful, logical, rational decisions in the best interest of ALL Delta pilots?
Well you should have acted a long time ago to rectify it, especially if people have the same heartburn you have with the current reps in your base. Maybe you're just in the minority, it happens...
05-17-2014, 10:59 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: 737A
Posts: 1,890
I think it's disengenuous to claim any CDO is unsafe when we already allow ridiculous 2 man redeyes like Lima. A 1.5 block CDO would be a piece of cake comparatively.
05-17-2014, 11:07 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 351
). It's Delta's flying and as long as a Delta pilot is flying it for good compensation I don't care. My question to you is are you ok with our contract allowing middle of the night 10:34 3 days?You idea about other bases flying it is great. It would have to be at least a "real" 4 day for it to work which means it will pay much better then it does now. Problem is we have no control as to how they schedule it and who fly's it.
05-17-2014, 11:08 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
Denny,
It is relevant. I'm not asking about the legality. I totally understand how a CDO is legal (although not safe).
Sleep science has determined that the average person needs 8 hours of sleep in order to function best. The FAA has determined that this is applicable to pilots and flying. It was part of the thinking that went into FAR 117.
If you want to answer my question, you will need to answer it from the standpoint of safety, not legality.
It is relevant. I'm not asking about the legality. I totally understand how a CDO is legal (although not safe).
Sleep science has determined that the average person needs 8 hours of sleep in order to function best. The FAA has determined that this is applicable to pilots and flying. It was part of the thinking that went into FAR 117.
If you want to answer my question, you will need to answer it from the standpoint of safety, not legality.
Hmmm, so we should immediately ground a large portion of the FDX and UPS flying? I mean who can fly more than one leg per night?
/sarcasm/
FAR 117 is a science based set of rule changes that had half of the ARC members from airline pilot labor groups, unless I read it incorrectly...
Again... Let us all please just wait and see what the document contains before going off and passing judgment on something we have not evaluated.
05-17-2014, 11:13 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Denny,
It is relevant. I'm not asking about the legality. I totally understand how a CDO is legal (although not safe).
Sleep science has determined that the average person needs 8 hours of sleep in order to function best. The FAA has determined that this is applicable to pilots and flying. It was part of the thinking that went into FAR 117.
If you want to answer my question, you will need to answer it from the standpoint of safety, not legality.
It is relevant. I'm not asking about the legality. I totally understand how a CDO is legal (although not safe).
Sleep science has determined that the average person needs 8 hours of sleep in order to function best. The FAA has determined that this is applicable to pilots and flying. It was part of the thinking that went into FAR 117.
If you want to answer my question, you will need to answer it from the standpoint of safety, not legality.
FAR 117 requires the opportunity to get 8 hours of sleep. It's based on widely accepted sleep science and the need to be properly rested before flying. How do you get "8 hours of uninterrupted sleep opportunity" with the requirements you listed?
No where do you mention "safe." Since a CDO is one duty period, you get your 10+ hours of rest prior to sign in. There is no legal requirement to get 8 hours between flights in the same duty period. It makes asking your question irrelevant. You aren't required to get it.
Again, I'm not going to get into the safe or not argument. That is debatable and I think depends on the circumstances.
Denny
05-17-2014, 11:13 AM
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
Not directed solely at you, but you're the most recent poster on the subject...
Hmmm, so we should immediately ground a large portion of the FDX and UPS flying? I mean who can fly more than one leg per night?
/sarcasm/
FAR 117 is a science based set of rule changes that had half of the ARC members from airline pilot labor groups, unless I read it incorrectly...
Again... Let us all please just wait and see what the document contains before going off and passing judgment on something we have not evaluated.
Hmmm, so we should immediately ground a large portion of the FDX and UPS flying? I mean who can fly more than one leg per night?
/sarcasm/
FAR 117 is a science based set of rule changes that had half of the ARC members from airline pilot labor groups, unless I read it incorrectly...
Again... Let us all please just wait and see what the document contains before going off and passing judgment on something we have not evaluated.
Just because it's "legal" (surely, you have to agree this is a loophole... a way of getting around the FAR) doesn't mean it's safe.
05-17-2014, 11:16 AM
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
Here is your post:
FAR 117 requires the opportunity to get 8 hours of sleep. It's based on widely accepted sleep science and the need to be properly rested before flying. How do you get "8 hours of uninterrupted sleep opportunity" with the requirements you listed?
No where do you mention "safe." Since a CDO is one duty period, you get your 10+ hours of rest prior to sign in. There is no legal requirement to get 8 hours between flights in the same duty period. It makes asking your question irrelevant. You aren't required to get it.
Again, I'm not going to get into the safe or not argument. That is debatable and I think depends on the circumstances.
Denny
FAR 117 requires the opportunity to get 8 hours of sleep. It's based on widely accepted sleep science and the need to be properly rested before flying. How do you get "8 hours of uninterrupted sleep opportunity" with the requirements you listed?
No where do you mention "safe." Since a CDO is one duty period, you get your 10+ hours of rest prior to sign in. There is no legal requirement to get 8 hours between flights in the same duty period. It makes asking your question irrelevant. You aren't required to get it.
Again, I'm not going to get into the safe or not argument. That is debatable and I think depends on the circumstances.
Denny
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
