Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: SLC ERB
Posts: 467
(C) Ninety consecutive minutes are available for in-flight rest for the pilot performing monitoring duties during landing.
Both pilots sitting in control seats during landing are required to have rest during flight.
But my question is, how can the pilot doing the first landing get 2 consecutive hours of rest in the second half of the FDP?
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,599
I get that and agree. But to argue the Slit-Duty / CDO stuff isn't a significant concession is BS. Someone even chimed in that it was at our request as pilots longed for this opportunity. I don't buy it at all. Like you, I'm waiting for the details but I'm guessing this isn't the clear-cut win we were all hoping for. If this isn't an optimal negotiating environment, could someone please enlighten as to me what is?
What you and I don't know is how their inclusion will effect overall trip construction. I do know that many many simulations were run trying many different options. I will wait to here what the MEC reports on the simulations. The forum of course will call those reports selling the TA.
I get that and agree. But to argue the Slit-Duty / CDO stuff isn't a significant concession is BS. Someone even chimed in that it was at our request as pilots longed for this opportunity. I don't buy it at all. Like you, I'm waiting for the details but I'm guessing this isn't the clear-cut win we were all hoping for. If this isn't an optimal negotiating environment, could someone please enlighten as to me what is?
If this passes, it will significantly lower the possibilities for C2015 very close to even beginning negotiations.
Whoever wrote that document for ALPA is guilty of using vague and imprecise terms just like we have been doing here on the forum. When the author says "mid duty rest" he is apparently referring to the rest opportunity that is defined in 117.15
And I repeat - there is no such animal as a "CDO". Wykoff shouldn't have used that term.
And FAR 117.15 in the very first sentence says that the rest opportunity means sleep.
That ALPA Q&A is pretty good but in their attempt to give it an "everyman" informal tone and be more "conversational" they fall short in some areas. I hope (and trust) that our negotiators did better.
I would refer you to actual FAR and the supporting documents published by the FAA which provide some background and clarification.
Here's some really good background documents (if you need a sleep aid)
Documents Associated with 14 CFR Part 117
And I repeat - there is no such animal as a "CDO". Wykoff shouldn't have used that term.
And FAR 117.15 in the very first sentence says that the rest opportunity means sleep.
That ALPA Q&A is pretty good but in their attempt to give it an "everyman" informal tone and be more "conversational" they fall short in some areas. I hope (and trust) that our negotiators did better.
I would refer you to actual FAR and the supporting documents published by the FAA which provide some background and clarification.
Here's some really good background documents (if you need a sleep aid)
Documents Associated with 14 CFR Part 117
To answer you first question with a question.. What was our leverage in a non section 6 negotiation? The only thing I see (and there may be more that I am not privy to) is the issue surrounding long call and a possible grievance. (that subjected each side to some risk) Ok, so beyond the value of coming to an amicable solution to that, we certainly had a bunch of "wants" and at some point the value of our "wants" exceeded what the other side was willing to give for that piece of leverage. So now the company proposes some things in return for our wish list and the negotiators try to figure out how to maximize the value of the deal. Even in section 6, there are tradeoffs. C2k, SWA contracts, UPS contracts, they all had some give and take. Leverage is only good up till the point it cost more than the alternative. Unless the wish list is short, I don't ever think there is a 100 percent win.
That being said, I am not commenting on whether this is a good deal or not. I don't know enough of the details, but the cdo deal and lack of reroute protections really bugs me.
That being said, I am not commenting on whether this is a good deal or not. I don't know enough of the details, but the cdo deal and lack of reroute protections really bugs me.
RANT WARNING
I agree with you guys 100% and I don't think that view has been given enough debate time.
DALPA views this TA as necessary to solve a minor issue involving long call reserves and FAR 117 implementation. They see a very narrow "bargaining environment" and they confined the talks to those scheduling issues. They did the best they could and they obviously thought it required some give and take, etc. etc. and we made some gains in some areas and made some concessions in others. All negotiations require give and take, yada, yada
The MEC chose to ignore or postpone any consideration of the larger, more comprehensive "bargaining environment". The one where the corporation is making massive profits largely as a result of the pilot concessions over the last decade and that fairness demands that some of those concessions be restored to us.
The MEC seems to be unwilling to expand this 117 situation into an opportunity to make some gains on a broader scale. They did not want to
engage the company in any way that might be disruptive to the operation. A real fight over Dickson's memo and the long call rules would have cost the company money and possibly disrupted the summer flight schedule. The MEC did not want to go there.
I think we should have picked a fight. (or more accurately, we should have responded when Dickson picked the fight)
I think it would have been legal and it would have paid off.
By confining our view of the "bargaining environment" to just a long call reserve problem and ignoring the big picture we ended up just tweaking the scheduling section and doing the old ALPA "what are you willing to give up for that" dance. We end up with 5+15 ADG and CDOs.
Very disappointing.
Maybe somebody will bring this up at the MEC meeting. Maybe they will turn this thing down and decide to attempt some larger gains.
I'm not optimistic however. ALPA as an institution has become so "risk averse" and passive that it seems to have almost been completely neutered. I think it would be worth a shot to get just a bit aggressive when the money is flowing like it is now. Management and the shareholders are slurping at the trough. We should at least be making a loud noise and emphasizing the point that a lot of that money is OURS.
I guess we'll get 'em in 2015. (or '16 or '18 maybe. Depending on the mood at the NMB)
The same NMB that also seems to strike fear in the hearts of anyone in Herndon.
DALPA views this TA as necessary to solve a minor issue involving long call reserves and FAR 117 implementation. They see a very narrow "bargaining environment" and they confined the talks to those scheduling issues. They did the best they could and they obviously thought it required some give and take, etc. etc. and we made some gains in some areas and made some concessions in others. All negotiations require give and take, yada, yada
The MEC chose to ignore or postpone any consideration of the larger, more comprehensive "bargaining environment". The one where the corporation is making massive profits largely as a result of the pilot concessions over the last decade and that fairness demands that some of those concessions be restored to us.
The MEC seems to be unwilling to expand this 117 situation into an opportunity to make some gains on a broader scale. They did not want to
engage the company in any way that might be disruptive to the operation. A real fight over Dickson's memo and the long call rules would have cost the company money and possibly disrupted the summer flight schedule. The MEC did not want to go there.
I think we should have picked a fight. (or more accurately, we should have responded when Dickson picked the fight)
I think it would have been legal and it would have paid off.
By confining our view of the "bargaining environment" to just a long call reserve problem and ignoring the big picture we ended up just tweaking the scheduling section and doing the old ALPA "what are you willing to give up for that" dance. We end up with 5+15 ADG and CDOs.
Very disappointing.
Maybe somebody will bring this up at the MEC meeting. Maybe they will turn this thing down and decide to attempt some larger gains.
I'm not optimistic however. ALPA as an institution has become so "risk averse" and passive that it seems to have almost been completely neutered. I think it would be worth a shot to get just a bit aggressive when the money is flowing like it is now. Management and the shareholders are slurping at the trough. We should at least be making a loud noise and emphasizing the point that a lot of that money is OURS.
I guess we'll get 'em in 2015. (or '16 or '18 maybe. Depending on the mood at the NMB)
The same NMB that also seems to strike fear in the hearts of anyone in Herndon.
Last edited by Check Essential; 05-19-2014 at 08:38 AM.
I'm not an insider and I don't know the nuts and bolts of what transpired. As to leverage, maybe we had none. I don't know. Did the company have leverage that forced us into these CDOs? Again, I don't don't know. Either way, not crazy about what little I've seen so far. I guess I'll sit back and wait for the whole thing to be released then try to digest what's in there. My guess is I'm going to have to work under this deal whether I like it or not. Just hoping the positives significantly outweigh the negatives. So far, I don't see it--maybe it's there.
Again, I have no idea what the details were of this deal, maybe we blew an opportunity.. Who knows?
DELTA MASTER EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
March 22 – 27, 2010
Orlando, Florida
AGENDA ITEM #AI 10-52COMMITTEE # 2
MAKER: ENDLER SECOND: GERST
MOTION # VOTE:
WHEREAS the single duty period overnight rotations, more commonly known as “illegals,” were very popular with the most senior pilots who live in base, and
WHEREAS these “illegal” rotations are very cost effective and eliminated the need for 30+ hour domestic layovers in many locations with minimal service, and
WHEREAS “Illegal” rotations are flown by all the other major mainline carriers,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the Delta MEC directs the Negotiating Committee and Scheduling Committee to use any resources necessary to provide for the construction and reinstatement of single duty period short overnight rotations for domestic pilots, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the MEC directs the Scheduling Committee to work with the Company to build and return “illegals” back to the monthly bid packages.
March 22 – 27, 2010
Orlando, Florida
AGENDA ITEM #AI 10-52COMMITTEE # 2
MAKER: ENDLER SECOND: GERST
MOTION # VOTE:
WHEREAS the single duty period overnight rotations, more commonly known as “illegals,” were very popular with the most senior pilots who live in base, and
WHEREAS these “illegal” rotations are very cost effective and eliminated the need for 30+ hour domestic layovers in many locations with minimal service, and
WHEREAS “Illegal” rotations are flown by all the other major mainline carriers,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the Delta MEC directs the Negotiating Committee and Scheduling Committee to use any resources necessary to provide for the construction and reinstatement of single duty period short overnight rotations for domestic pilots, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the MEC directs the Scheduling Committee to work with the Company to build and return “illegals” back to the monthly bid packages.
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 302
We took concessions in the last contract in a upswing airline industry, why not do it again? The pilots voted it through.
If you don't think that there was horse trading in every negotiation that's ever taken place, at any airline, in both up and down years, you're sadly mistaken.
C2K was a prime example of giving up certain work rules to gain others. The net result was an increase in productivity in exchange for an increase in pay such that the pilots' overall compensation increased.
Not saying it's right or wrong. Just saying it's been around forever, NOT just since BK.
C2K was a prime example of giving up certain work rules to gain others. The net result was an increase in productivity in exchange for an increase in pay such that the pilots' overall compensation increased.
Not saying it's right or wrong. Just saying it's been around forever, NOT just since BK.
But your claim C2K was a increase in productivity (meaning requiring less pilots for the amount of flying), is not true. I know someone will chime in and talk about what somebody in crew resources told them, but go into the ALPA office and look at the roadshow slides. Every change was costed. When a work rule change required more pilots (for example: additional X days, reduced cap, reroute pay, etc) that cost was added. Conversely, when a change required less pilots (eliminating partial month move-ups for reserves), that cost was subtracted.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post