Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
09-16-2014, 09:33 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
CDOs have no place in major airline ops. They are onerous at best. And if allowed, will have a ripple effect throughout the bid packages as trips are changed to allow for the CDOs. We need to protect what we have, for example; Some people want to sell their vacations... should we permit that? Just for those who want to? Would it affect others?
How is it less safe for us to fly CDO's when they're accepted across our ramp?
CDO's exist because we permit Delta to outsource our flying and those pilots have agreed to do them.
If we fix our scope hypocrisy, killing CDO's would not even be a question.
09-16-2014, 10:07 AM
At home on the maddog!
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: ATL MD-88A
Posts: 2,874
I'm all for fixing our "scope hypocrisy" but this particular issue has very little to do with scope.
09-16-2014, 10:59 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
09-16-2014, 11:02 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
If you didn't read the rotation construction committee email, go retrieve it from your trash bin. It is pretty dang funny. One mans trash is another mans treasure.
Oh, and thanks guys for all the Garmisch and Salzburg info. We are wading through the already too long to accomplish list.
Oh, and thanks guys for all the Garmisch and Salzburg info. We are wading through the already too long to accomplish list.
09-16-2014, 11:05 AM
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
What's going on with Richard Branson?
09-16-2014, 11:07 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
You are absolutely correct. It's amazing the number of pilots that don't understand this is the net effect, i.e. selling back vacation.
In fact, as you pointed out, every pilot effectively has the "option" of selling back 100% of his vacation---the net effect on manning is MUCH, MUCH worse than when pilots could sell only 50% back.
In fact, as you pointed out, every pilot effectively has the "option" of selling back 100% of his vacation---the net effect on manning is MUCH, MUCH worse than when pilots could sell only 50% back.
09-16-2014, 11:13 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Stay THIRSTY, my friends!
Posts: 1,898
It was pure gold. I especially love the part where they explain that the union doesn't actually buy airplanes or make route decisions.
09-16-2014, 11:14 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Left, left, left right left....
Posts: 911
In my opinion, this was another problem with CDO's. What happens with one when no one wants it? It goes to a reserve. It's not right to dump this on a reserve who has no say about it. For some of us, reserve is not a choice.
I'm still a strong no. If a reserve can refuse the assignment with no penalty, that would be an improvement.
I spoke with a LEC rep, not mine. He said that the reason the CDO question was even on the survey was to mollify a small, vocal group that was in favor of them. DALPA was hoping for a strong no response. If the got they got a strong no response, they could tell the vocal group to pound sand. He said the Company didn't want them, but would take them it they could get them.
I told the rep that we had already risen up and spoken against them with a roar. If this information is true, this minority lobbying for CDO's needs to go away.
I'm still a strong no. If a reserve can refuse the assignment with no penalty, that would be an improvement.
I spoke with a LEC rep, not mine. He said that the reason the CDO question was even on the survey was to mollify a small, vocal group that was in favor of them. DALPA was hoping for a strong no response. If the got they got a strong no response, they could tell the vocal group to pound sand. He said the Company didn't want them, but would take them it they could get them.
I told the rep that we had already risen up and spoken against them with a roar. If this information is true, this minority lobbying for CDO's needs to go away.
Now suddenly the majority decides to mollify the minority by putting a controversial issue in the survey? Doesn't pass the sniff test. Sounds more like scapegoating someone else's position.
I have a copy of an email from a C20 member to the MEC Chair over the original CDO language and the Chairman's response that it did not originate with C20, yet now it's in the survey because of a noisy minority?
Here's a clue - it likely was a noisy minority - of appointed long time Moak associates who still work in the inner circle of the MEC who don't need no stinkin' Democracy. Clearly not the will of elected voting majority, or minority.
One of the anointed will be in DTW tomorrow for the C2015 roadshows maybe someone should ask him and the Chairman, and one of the negotiators directly and publicly how the language needed up in the survey.
Maybe they were just honoring the will of the Company?
09-16-2014, 11:32 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
09-16-2014, 11:36 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
Never mind
Last edited by Ferd149; 09-16-2014 at 11:50 AM. Reason: Headed down for a signature, probably easier :-)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
