Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-24-2014, 05:25 AM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
SUBJECT:
Reinstatement of Illegals
SOURCE:
Council 20
BACKGROUND:
Single duty period overnight turn rotations are no longer being constructed since all DAL-N fleets have transitioned to the DAL PBS system. These rotations were previously senior trips and highly sought after by especially those who lived in base. As a result, many rotations now include 30+ hour layovers in cities that were previously destinations for these single duty period short overnights. Examples are of these layover cities are MSN, GRR, RAP, FSD, etc. These new long layovers are very unpopular and unproductive especially relative to the previous way that these rotations were constructed.
The following resolution was passed at a recent Council 20 LEC meeting
Maker: Mavrick
Second: Goose
Passed: Unanimous
BE IT RESOLVED the pilots of Delta Council 20 direct our LEC Officers to present the following resolution to the Delta MEC at the 1st Quarter (March) 2010 MEC meeting.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION:
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 majormainline 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.
Reinstatement of Illegals
SOURCE:
Council 20
BACKGROUND:
Single duty period overnight turn rotations are no longer being constructed since all DAL-N fleets have transitioned to the DAL PBS system. These rotations were previously senior trips and highly sought after by especially those who lived in base. As a result, many rotations now include 30+ hour layovers in cities that were previously destinations for these single duty period short overnights. Examples are of these layover cities are MSN, GRR, RAP, FSD, etc. These new long layovers are very unpopular and unproductive especially relative to the previous way that these rotations were constructed.
The following resolution was passed at a recent Council 20 LEC meeting
Maker: Mavrick
Second: Goose
Passed: Unanimous
BE IT RESOLVED the pilots of Delta Council 20 direct our LEC Officers to present the following resolution to the Delta MEC at the 1st Quarter (March) 2010 MEC meeting.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION:
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 majormainline 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.
Maybe next LOA they'll bring compass in house in reference to our 2009 resolution.
05-24-2014, 05:33 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
The issue is that reps thought we'd like the SDP's, but made the basic mistake of not validating that before it got to a vote. That's the bad news. The good news is that pilots saw the value of their involvement, and reps saw the dangers of straying too far without consultation. They did a good job staying right on top of the NC, but forgot to make sure we could stay right on top of the discussion.
You are correct, we as a MEC, thought the SDP would be a way to give pilots what they wanted, which was fewer 30 hour sits and more time at home.
Then C20 (where the idea came from on paper) got very defensive when the politics went South (what a pun) and tried to deflect. Their pilots want memrat to distance themselves politically from an idea which is already dead for this round and was a joint MEC position by this stage. Their calls for recall are completely over the top ... and of course we had a unanimous vote which seals the deal. It was all so emo.
Perhaps a better tact (and what a lot of reps have done) is to step up responsibly and state "yes, we directed the NC to the SDP." Because I think the idea which originated from C 20 isn't bad. We probably will see SDP in future negotiations. I think it is in our benefit to address and limit this back side of the clock flying because as is we have the worst case scenario of being able to do it as a day line that just duties in late with very few protections and we can't benefit from the scheduling (more time at home) and pay (more credit) that these might allow.
Briefly then, we need to continue this SDP discussion because I think they could be a benefit.
Last edited by Bucking Bar; 05-24-2014 at 05:44 AM.
05-24-2014, 05:34 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: No to large RJs
Posts: 369
Gentlemen-
Here's everything I know about that subject:
I was asked to leave the room for the closed sessions when the reps were doing things like giving "direction" to the negotiators and/or discussing whether the direction that was previously given had been achieved in the TA. etc. etc.
Therefore I can not say which individual reps from which councils favored or opposed CDOs. I also do not know where the original idea of possibly pursuing CDOs in this agreement came from. I am aware of the Council 20 resolution, but that was a few years old and I have no idea if it had any influence here or not.
I can't say with absolute metaphysical certainty of course because I was not in those closed sessions but it seemed pretty clear to me that 100% of the reps have been fully aware for weeks and months now that at least some version of CDOs were being discussed, and that CDOs (or at least the possibility of CDOs) were a part of the direction given to the negotiators by the MEC as a body. That fact was evident from the first day discussions. There obviously may have been reps who strongly opposed that "direction". I don't know any individual rep's position.
I also do not know to what extent the final CDO language in the TA conformed to the wishes of the MEC. But I think its very safe to say that the negotiators did not come up with the idea of CDOs on their own and then spring them on the MEC in this TA. The MEC was aware the whole time.
Who is responsible for failing to adequately communicate the possibility of CDOs to the line pilots before negotiating them into a TA? That is an open question. The MEC as a whole? The administration? The reps who favored CDOs? The reps who opposed CDOs? I don't know. I do think we need to have that discussion.
I think I can safely say that NOBODY anticipated the intensity of the firestorm that would ignite when they finally did hand out the actual language at the meeting. That caught them completely off guard.
Even Donatelli's Chairman Letter, where CDOs were an obscure reference way down as the 7th bullet point--
Establishes split duty periods with scheduling protections above and beyond the FAR and a 7:30 pay guarantee.
did not really have the huge effect. I think most of us were still scratching our heads a little bit and wondering exactly what the **** they were talking about. (the NWA guys may have known, most of us DAL guys did not). But when the actual language got out on this forum and people saw 3 hours behind the door -- that's when the explosion occurred.
I definitely think that should be a lesson learned. Bullet points don't cut it.
It was interesting to watch this thing evolve at the meeting. When the CDOs were first made public and the e-mails started to come in, the reps who favored the TA seemed to still be willing to go with it but they knew they would certainly have to send any TA with CDOs to MEMRAT.
The second day when the blizzard of e-mails hit, then they all knew there was no way they could ever vote for this thing and send it out.
That's when they closed the meeting again and gave the negotiators some new "direction".
Here's everything I know about that subject:
I was asked to leave the room for the closed sessions when the reps were doing things like giving "direction" to the negotiators and/or discussing whether the direction that was previously given had been achieved in the TA. etc. etc.
Therefore I can not say which individual reps from which councils favored or opposed CDOs. I also do not know where the original idea of possibly pursuing CDOs in this agreement came from. I am aware of the Council 20 resolution, but that was a few years old and I have no idea if it had any influence here or not.
I can't say with absolute metaphysical certainty of course because I was not in those closed sessions but it seemed pretty clear to me that 100% of the reps have been fully aware for weeks and months now that at least some version of CDOs were being discussed, and that CDOs (or at least the possibility of CDOs) were a part of the direction given to the negotiators by the MEC as a body. That fact was evident from the first day discussions. There obviously may have been reps who strongly opposed that "direction". I don't know any individual rep's position.
I also do not know to what extent the final CDO language in the TA conformed to the wishes of the MEC. But I think its very safe to say that the negotiators did not come up with the idea of CDOs on their own and then spring them on the MEC in this TA. The MEC was aware the whole time.
Who is responsible for failing to adequately communicate the possibility of CDOs to the line pilots before negotiating them into a TA? That is an open question. The MEC as a whole? The administration? The reps who favored CDOs? The reps who opposed CDOs? I don't know. I do think we need to have that discussion.
I think I can safely say that NOBODY anticipated the intensity of the firestorm that would ignite when they finally did hand out the actual language at the meeting. That caught them completely off guard.
Even Donatelli's Chairman Letter, where CDOs were an obscure reference way down as the 7th bullet point--
Establishes split duty periods with scheduling protections above and beyond the FAR and a 7:30 pay guarantee.
did not really have the huge effect. I think most of us were still scratching our heads a little bit and wondering exactly what the **** they were talking about. (the NWA guys may have known, most of us DAL guys did not). But when the actual language got out on this forum and people saw 3 hours behind the door -- that's when the explosion occurred.
I definitely think that should be a lesson learned. Bullet points don't cut it.
It was interesting to watch this thing evolve at the meeting. When the CDOs were first made public and the e-mails started to come in, the reps who favored the TA seemed to still be willing to go with it but they knew they would certainly have to send any TA with CDOs to MEMRAT.
The second day when the blizzard of e-mails hit, then they all knew there was no way they could ever vote for this thing and send it out.
That's when they closed the meeting again and gave the negotiators some new "direction".
I have since asked reps "where they came from?" No specifics. I think we should find out how this came about because it was not anywhere near a true representation of the group and a problem I still see within our union. Top/down representation.
The language Donnatelli uses in his letter regarding SDPs (bolded above) is misleading at best. I say misleading because that language is an unknown to even most civilian pilots who are intimately familiar with CDOs, naps etc. Most I talked to asked me what that meant.
I personally think the company wanted it bad for efficiency contrary to what some have written here. I think our guys don't want to disappoint MGT. I think they are hostage to "constructive engagement" and we are going to lose a golden opportunity in C2015 if things don't change. We would most likely have been flying CDOs in July/aug timeframe if not for the uproar from the linedawgs. All this while D is making billions.
05-24-2014, 05:36 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
Some scream for memrat on a scheduling deal which could be renegotiated in 6 months. Yet, we kick 400+ pilots outside of our MEC and nobody cries for memrat.
What was worse, the C44 reps voted against their own pilots' resolution. A split vote, the fist split vote, among pre merger lines. If you were to track MEC dysfunction to a point in time, that is the point. It is fitting that disunity began with a MEC resolution for disunity. A move which should keep these reps out of any elected position until they seek redemption for their sin.
What's the bigger deal? A scheduling change or losing 5% of pilots represented by the Delta MEC?
Perhaps we need a resolution which at least requires Memrat on kicking members to the curb.
Last edited by Bucking Bar; 05-24-2014 at 05:54 AM.
05-24-2014, 05:41 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
So you believe that any TA that we receive is the first offer? Really? Because that is precisely what you said above.... If that is in fact the case, then you have an extremely poor view of any negotiators we could ever have. They must be the stupidest people on the face of the earth.
Carl
05-24-2014, 05:50 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Yes, only possibly. We don't control trip construction, so we don't yet know if this will be the home run that some think or the ho hum that it might prove to be. My hope is that it's a hugely good thing and sets the stage for 6:00 ADG in C2015.
It is a step in the right direction I think. Again, I don't know how management will interpret and mitigate the language in actual operation.
Carl
Carl
05-24-2014, 05:52 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
05-24-2014, 06:10 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
"Scared" is doing what you advocate which is to always take whatever is offered first. You'd make a lousy business person being as risk intolerant as you are.
Carl
05-24-2014, 06:10 AM
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
I didn't say any offer we receive equates to the opener from management. I said whatever is offered to us first...that is, the line pilots. This exercise showed what can happen when we line pilots tell everyone that the first offer is unacceptable. We weren't too scared to try. In my opinion, Starcheck102 is the kind of guy who's too scared to ever do anything but take the first offer.
Carl
Carl
But let me try to understand. The negotiators go into negotiations, and turn down the first offer... I think that's safe to say, but from your perspective I am not so sure... But anyway, they haggle and finally come up with a deal. They then present it to the pilot group as a whole.. but because it is the first time WE have seen the deal, it is back to square one, ipso facto the first offer, and therefore worthy of nothing but a rubber stamp sending it back... is that about right? Why do we e en bother with negotiators? FOr that matter, we really don't need the memory rat. Let's call it the Spackler device that automatically rejects any TA until it is sent back to the table.
Standing by to receive input as to how "scared" I am or how "risk intolerant" I am or some other such foolishness...
05-24-2014, 06:15 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Thank you very much, CE. I think you're right about having that discussion.
I think one answer is obviously that when our reps were engaged in discussions about CDO's since October, there needed to be a discussion within each council. Ed Grimley had a good post about a protocol we should be following (with some small changes), and I strongly agree that we need to have some sort of predictable procedure, in which pilot input is validated upfront, and throughout the process.
The MEC failed to anticipate our reaction to SDP's, and they failed for the simple reason they never floated the idea to the group. It seems to me that they actually genuinely believed that these were a good solution, but that was based mostly on the input from guys begging for them. In other words, if there was a better protocol for developing smaller LOA's, that would mirror Section 6, with polling, they've totally failed to follow the most basic steps. Informal e-mails from a few guys lobbying for specific (and obscure) items does NOT represent "input from the council".
We have to help them clean this up. The way to fix this is to get them to apply the Section 6 process to more LOA's, and get the policy manual re-written to get more automatic MEMRAT. In this case, we got to sufficient pilot input, but in an ugly, convoluted way. Although Donatelli was off on his analysis of the TA, he gave us the synopsis with just enough time to make our voices heard. At the end, the offensive section was identified and removed.
There must be a better way. You can't grossly muck up the first several steps of the process, totally fail at getting pilot input, then hide behind a vote for MEMRAT, after a unanimous vote for the TA. It's so grotesque an argument that so far, none of the reps have tried. We know from experience that most, if not all, TA's that are endorsed by the MEC are ratified by the group. A TA endorsed universally is even more likely to pass.
Which is why we must go back to basics, and have a better feedback loop that involves pilot input by design, not by accident.
I think one answer is obviously that when our reps were engaged in discussions about CDO's since October, there needed to be a discussion within each council. Ed Grimley had a good post about a protocol we should be following (with some small changes), and I strongly agree that we need to have some sort of predictable procedure, in which pilot input is validated upfront, and throughout the process.
The MEC failed to anticipate our reaction to SDP's, and they failed for the simple reason they never floated the idea to the group. It seems to me that they actually genuinely believed that these were a good solution, but that was based mostly on the input from guys begging for them. In other words, if there was a better protocol for developing smaller LOA's, that would mirror Section 6, with polling, they've totally failed to follow the most basic steps. Informal e-mails from a few guys lobbying for specific (and obscure) items does NOT represent "input from the council".
We have to help them clean this up. The way to fix this is to get them to apply the Section 6 process to more LOA's, and get the policy manual re-written to get more automatic MEMRAT. In this case, we got to sufficient pilot input, but in an ugly, convoluted way. Although Donatelli was off on his analysis of the TA, he gave us the synopsis with just enough time to make our voices heard. At the end, the offensive section was identified and removed.
There must be a better way. You can't grossly muck up the first several steps of the process, totally fail at getting pilot input, then hide behind a vote for MEMRAT, after a unanimous vote for the TA. It's so grotesque an argument that so far, none of the reps have tried. We know from experience that most, if not all, TA's that are endorsed by the MEC are ratified by the group. A TA endorsed universally is even more likely to pass.
Which is why we must go back to basics, and have a better feedback loop that involves pilot input by design, not by accident.
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
