Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-17-2014, 04:50 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 489
I had a different experience. As a NW reserve pilot I had to fly alot of CDO's. I do not buy that they are always going to go senior. (others said they would as well, not just picking on you new)
More than a handfull that I had to fly were with the same individual. He lived in base, did the family thing and all that is involved with that during the day, then flew the CDO getting, maybe, 4-5 hours of sleep. Rinse, repeat for days. The guy looked like death warmed over.
Former carrier of mine had a crew run a plane off the end of a runway at JFK and if I am remembering correctly, fatigue due to the CDO they were on was listed as a factor.
CDO's are fatiguing and unsafe imho. If dalpa signs off on bringing CDO's back to us I don't ever want to hear or read "Scheduling with Safety" again. It will be a hollow slogan.
To those that say something to the effect of "Well, we already do [insert type of trip] and it is fatiguing, so what is the big deal about cdo's?" That arguement holds no logic to me. Why add even more crap/fatiguing flying on top of what we already have? Why does the fact that we already do some fatiguing stuff mean it's ok to add more? I thought it was supposed to be about safety? And not to mention that it is nothing but a concession.
We just got 10 hour min. overnights via pt 117, and are now going to allow CDO's to be introduced? Seriously? May as well bring back reduced-rest overnights while we are at it. Makes just as much sense.
Somebody said this some pages back, but it seems we are allowing some of our work rules to morph towards regional rules. That is unacceptable.
05-17-2014, 04:55 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 489
I'm getting a little confused here. I haven't seen the letter yet, so can someone help me out?
Couldn't they have thought outside the box 5 months ago and avoided all this to begin with?
In January, we said the contract says acknowledgment 3 hours to report. They said the FAR's require acknowledgment 10 hours to report.
Now, they are saying no acknowledgment is required at all? What gives?
Now
Couldn't they have thought outside the box 5 months ago and avoided all this to begin with?
In January, we said the contract says acknowledgment 3 hours to report. They said the FAR's require acknowledgment 10 hours to report.
Now, they are saying no acknowledgment is required at all? What gives?
Now
Good question.
We were always told (by the company and dalpa) that the 10 hours of rest had to be prospective, ie we had to know about it/acknowledge. How can we get prospective rest and know about it if we don't acknowledge a trip, or even see it until hours later??
I don't see how one can just check their schedule within a 10-12 hour period and meet the 117 prospective rest??
05-17-2014, 04:55 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,599
I had a different experience. As a NW reserve pilot I had to fly alot of CDO's. I do not buy that they are always going to go senior. (others said they would as well, not just picking on you new)
More than a handfull that I had to fly were with the same individual. He lived in base, did the family thing and all that is involved with that during the day, then flew the CDO getting, maybe, 4-5 hours of sleep. Rinse, repeat for days. The guy looked like death warmed over.
Former carrier of mine had a crew run a plane off the end of a runway at JFK and if I am remembering correctly, fatigue due to the CDO they were on was listed as a factor.
CDO's are fatiguing and unsafe. If dalpa signs off on bringing CDO's back to us I don't ever want to hear or read "Scheduling with Safety" again. It will be a hollow slogan.
To those that say something to the effect of "Well, we already do [insert type of trip] and it is fatiguing, so what is the big deal about cdo's?" That arguement holds no logic to me. Why add even more crap/fatiguing flying on top of what we already have? Why does the fact that we already do some fatiguing stuff mean it's ok to add more? I thought it was supposed to be about safety? And not to mention that it is nothing but a concession.
We just got 10 hour min. overnights via pt 117, and are now going to allow CDO's to be introduced? Seriously? May as well bring back reduced-rest overnights while we are at it. Makes just as much sense.
Somebody said this some pages back, but it seems we are allowing some of our work rules to morph towards regional rules. That is unacceptable.
More than a handfull that I had to fly were with the same individual. He lived in base, did the family thing and all that is involved with that during the day, then flew the CDO getting, maybe, 4-5 hours of sleep. Rinse, repeat for days. The guy looked like death warmed over.
Former carrier of mine had a crew run a plane off the end of a runway at JFK and if I am remembering correctly, fatigue due to the CDO they were on was listed as a factor.
CDO's are fatiguing and unsafe. If dalpa signs off on bringing CDO's back to us I don't ever want to hear or read "Scheduling with Safety" again. It will be a hollow slogan.
To those that say something to the effect of "Well, we already do [insert type of trip] and it is fatiguing, so what is the big deal about cdo's?" That arguement holds no logic to me. Why add even more crap/fatiguing flying on top of what we already have? Why does the fact that we already do some fatiguing stuff mean it's ok to add more? I thought it was supposed to be about safety? And not to mention that it is nothing but a concession.
We just got 10 hour min. overnights via pt 117, and are now going to allow CDO's to be introduced? Seriously? May as well bring back reduced-rest overnights while we are at it. Makes just as much sense.
Somebody said this some pages back, but it seems we are allowing some of our work rules to morph towards regional rules. That is unacceptable.
I am not yet sure about CDO'. My gut feeling is they are not good. If however this guy you flew with looked like death warmed over from doing 9 or 10 a month he better never fly international!
05-17-2014, 05:00 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 489
05-17-2014, 05:03 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 180
05-17-2014, 05:04 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,324
I had a different experience. As a NW reserve pilot I had to fly alot of CDO's. I do not buy that they are always going to go senior. (others said they would as well, not just picking on you new)
More than a handfull that I had to fly were with the same individual. He lived in base, did the family thing and all that is involved with that during the day, then flew the CDO getting, maybe, 4-5 hours of sleep. Rinse, repeat for days. The guy looked like death warmed over.
Former carrier of mine had a crew run a plane off the end of a runway at JFK and if I am remembering correctly, fatigue due to the CDO they were on was listed as a factor.
CDO's are fatiguing and unsafe imho. If dalpa signs off on bringing CDO's back to us I don't ever want to hear or read "Scheduling with Safety" again. It will be a hollow slogan.
To those that say something to the effect of "Well, we already do [insert type of trip] and it is fatiguing, so what is the big deal about cdo's?" That arguement holds no logic to me. Why add even more crap/fatiguing flying on top of what we already have? Why does the fact that we already do some fatiguing stuff mean it's ok to add more? I thought it was supposed to be about safety? And not to mention that it is nothing but a concession.
We just got 10 hour min. overnights via pt 117, and are now going to allow CDO's to be introduced? Seriously? May as well bring back reduced-rest overnights while we are at it. Makes just as much sense.
Somebody said this some pages back, but it seems we are allowing some of our work rules to morph towards regional rules. That is unacceptable.
More than a handfull that I had to fly were with the same individual. He lived in base, did the family thing and all that is involved with that during the day, then flew the CDO getting, maybe, 4-5 hours of sleep. Rinse, repeat for days. The guy looked like death warmed over.
Former carrier of mine had a crew run a plane off the end of a runway at JFK and if I am remembering correctly, fatigue due to the CDO they were on was listed as a factor.
CDO's are fatiguing and unsafe imho. If dalpa signs off on bringing CDO's back to us I don't ever want to hear or read "Scheduling with Safety" again. It will be a hollow slogan.
To those that say something to the effect of "Well, we already do [insert type of trip] and it is fatiguing, so what is the big deal about cdo's?" That arguement holds no logic to me. Why add even more crap/fatiguing flying on top of what we already have? Why does the fact that we already do some fatiguing stuff mean it's ok to add more? I thought it was supposed to be about safety? And not to mention that it is nothing but a concession.
We just got 10 hour min. overnights via pt 117, and are now going to allow CDO's to be introduced? Seriously? May as well bring back reduced-rest overnights while we are at it. Makes just as much sense.
Somebody said this some pages back, but it seems we are allowing some of our work rules to morph towards regional rules. That is unacceptable.
Last edited by capncrunch; 05-17-2014 at 05:15 PM.
05-17-2014, 05:06 PM
Straight QOL, homie
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Posts: 4,202
This is definitely a game changer--whether in a good or bad way remains to be seen, but I think it is going to be much, much better. I always emphasize to guys, that if on long call, as long as you are in a "contactable environment" then you always have a 12 (soon to be 13) hour continuously rolling bubble in front of you. That means you can have a beer with dinner etc.
Once you turn off your phone and go fishing, turn off your phone's ringer and go to sleep, or whatever it is that takes you outside of your "contactable" status, then you just have to assume that scheduling called the next second with a trip reporting exactly 12/13 hours later. Adjust your behavior accordingly, and then check your schedule as needed to be able to responsibly report. If you are ATL-based and live in Peachtree City, you could probably turn off the phone up to 10 hours at a time. If you live in Pennsylvania and are NYC-based, that probably goes to as little as seven.
Actually, as I type this, if this is true (no mandatory schedule check, but it is on the long call pilot to show up for his trips ready to fly) the more I like it. It should put a lot of the "SD memo" angst to rest.
Has anyone stated yet that the devil is in the details?.....
Once you turn off your phone and go fishing, turn off your phone's ringer and go to sleep, or whatever it is that takes you outside of your "contactable" status, then you just have to assume that scheduling called the next second with a trip reporting exactly 12/13 hours later. Adjust your behavior accordingly, and then check your schedule as needed to be able to responsibly report. If you are ATL-based and live in Peachtree City, you could probably turn off the phone up to 10 hours at a time. If you live in Pennsylvania and are NYC-based, that probably goes to as little as seven.
Actually, as I type this, if this is true (no mandatory schedule check, but it is on the long call pilot to show up for his trips ready to fly) the more I like it. It should put a lot of the "SD memo" angst to rest.
Has anyone stated yet that the devil is in the details?.....
If a LC guy turns off his phone when he goes to bed, and turns it on when he gets up, as he can do contractually now, that could cause problems under the new system.
Most LC guys, regardless of where they live, may now have to keep their phones on to potentially be interrupted by notification, or check their schedules in the middle of the night so as to know if/when to show up.
Or they keep their phones off, get good rest, and must then be on de facto short call when they wake up.
I don't see this as an improvement.
05-17-2014, 05:07 PM
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
I don't think this will be classified as "rest" but as a "sit" -in a hotel. If you are delayed by weather you can land. Turn the jet in 45 min and fly back to your base. The only limit will be the duty limit based on the report time. That's just a guess but I bet that's how the company will interpret it.
FAR 117 has a section specifically devoted to CDOs. They call it Split Duty.
§ 117.15
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-201...-sec117-15.pdf
05-17-2014, 05:11 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: M88 B
Posts: 399
The way this union does everything to help the company out at every turn. The result will be they will have no more wants after this. What is their incentive to get a contract done in 2015. They can stall for years under the RLA. What's the urgency to wrap up those negotiations they will have already gotten what they needed with LOA's.
I guess I am a risk taker I say status quo until the company steps up. So far I see nothing exciting.
05-17-2014, 05:11 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Personally, I think they might be moving towards forced trip acknowledgments when you sign into icrew. Kinda of like bulletin acknowledgments or other messages before you can get to the icrew home screen. I can see electronic trip notifications/acknowledgments starting to become more prevalent in the coming years. Especially after this past winters' irops and tracking's inability reroute crews efficiently.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
