Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-26-2014, 03:08 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,903
05-26-2014, 03:44 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: B737 CA
Posts: 1,518
Well, the unity displayed on this board in the face of the CDO threat was nice while it lasted - all of 3 or 4 days. 
05-26-2014, 03:45 PM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
Bar,
Are you saying the NC was directed by the Reps to bring back SDP's that were pay/partial credit? Or did they bring something back outside of the negotiating box they were given?
Also FYI have a copy of an email where MD responded to an acquaintance reference the SDP's, and was told that the SDP direction had nothing with the 2010 C20 resolution that failed at the MEC level (AI 10-52).
Are you saying the NC was directed by the Reps to bring back SDP's that were pay/partial credit? Or did they bring something back outside of the negotiating box they were given?
Also FYI have a copy of an email where MD responded to an acquaintance reference the SDP's, and was told that the SDP direction had nothing with the 2010 C20 resolution that failed at the MEC level (AI 10-52).
That having been stated, how can it possibly matter where the SDP concept came from? My understanding is that ALL of our reps provided direction to our NC. My understanding is when concerns arose that ALL reps redirected and our NC got an agreement under which Delta pilots got substantial gains.
Someone asked "where did this come from" and the resolution existed. Several on our MEC (outside of 20) thought SDPs were a good idea (and I am not against them). When the Council 20 resolution was posted some were offended ... and I still have no idea why anyone would find that offensive. None.
I found it odd that when the proper response was "great job" APC was wanting to recall other Council's reps ... I can not figure it out.
05-26-2014, 03:53 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Bar,
Are you saying the NC was directed by the Reps to bring back SDP's that were pay/partial credit? Or did they bring something back outside of the negotiating box they were given?
Also FYI have a copy of an email where MD responded to an acquaintance reference the SDP's, and was told that the SDP direction had nothing with the 2010 C20 resolution that failed at the MEC level (AI 10-52).
Are you saying the NC was directed by the Reps to bring back SDP's that were pay/partial credit? Or did they bring something back outside of the negotiating box they were given?
Also FYI have a copy of an email where MD responded to an acquaintance reference the SDP's, and was told that the SDP direction had nothing with the 2010 C20 resolution that failed at the MEC level (AI 10-52).
Are you saying that the NC went rogue or are you saying that the MEC provided the NC direction or are you saying the MEC was blindsided by SDPs or are you saying that the MEC is distancing itself from SDPs?
Anybody can say what they want, there is only one plausible explanation:
The MEC directed the NC to negotiate for SDPs in order to bring down the ratio of days worked vs hours flown.
Anyone who espouses anything different, IMO, is trying to cloud the issue. The 2010 resolution is irrelevant. Again IMO.
05-26-2014, 03:59 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
05-26-2014, 04:04 PM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
Anybody can say what they want, there is only one plausible explanation:
The MEC directed the NC to negotiate for SDPs in order to bring down the ratio of days worked vs hours flown.
Anyone who espouses anything different, IMO, is trying to cloud the issue. The 2010 resolution is irrelevant. Again IMO.
The MEC directed the NC to negotiate for SDPs in order to bring down the ratio of days worked vs hours flown.
Anyone who espouses anything different, IMO, is trying to cloud the issue. The 2010 resolution is irrelevant. Again IMO.
05-26-2014, 04:05 PM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
05-26-2014, 04:08 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: B737 CA
Posts: 1,518
That's pretty much what I was assuming when they came out. Increase productivity. They do, and if it wasn't for the safety issues with the longer ones and under IROPS, the pilot group would have likely welcomed them. I think just a few too many of us flew them in previous lives and were pretty familiar with the potential downside, and that caught the MEC a bit surprised.
05-26-2014, 04:15 PM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
That's pretty much what I was assuming when they came out. Increase productivity. They do, and if it wasn't for the safety issues with the longer ones and under IROPS, the pilot group would have likely welcomed them. I think just a few too many of us flew them in previous lives and were pretty familiar with the potential downside, and that caught the MEC a bit surprised.
I agree, but if we could be guaranteed 5:30 behind the door I would be back to packing a tooth brush in an instant.
You are right (the force is strong with this one folks) that IROPS are the rub. A diversion with a night on the airplane isn't unheard of among the operators who fly this sort of thing. (and how would I know that the forward cargo net on an ATR makes a great hammock?)
05-26-2014, 04:16 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,324
....................
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
