Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-02-2015, 03:56 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,111
Senior, as in super senior. I've gotten them before but they are rare in the new hire aircraft unless you are very senior. Some FOs get to enjoy a great schedule as a result; others just get to bid for the LCAs and see disappointment when The results come out. My guess is, if you're in the top 10% of your category you enjoy this part of the contract on a consistent basis. Otherwise, it's a rare bonus.
05-02-2015, 04:13 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 364
Only extremely senior first officers are flying with line check airman right now (top 10 percent in category). If you look at the top bids in PBS, every single one of the senior guys try to make every single one of their trips with a LCA to take a chance that some of their trips will be bought. If you change it back to recovery obligations, flying with LCA will go junior again. Everyone first officer on the list will br affected by this change.
05-02-2015, 04:27 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Two separate concepts being discussed, right?
1) The recovery obligations of a FO flying with a LCA.
2) The notion of removing LCA-awarded trips from the available pairings for FO's to bid.
2 is heinous, and affects every FO in category, +/- a couple. If you allow the removal of trips, then everyone below that point is getting a worse trip than they might have otherwise held. Essentially, every LCA in their category lowers the seniority of the FO's in their category by 1. I can't imagine this would seriously be considered.
1) The recovery obligations of a FO flying with a LCA.
2) The notion of removing LCA-awarded trips from the available pairings for FO's to bid.
2 is heinous, and affects every FO in category, +/- a couple. If you allow the removal of trips, then everyone below that point is getting a worse trip than they might have otherwise held. Essentially, every LCA in their category lowers the seniority of the FO's in their category by 1. I can't imagine this would seriously be considered.
05-02-2015, 04:43 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2012
Position: A350
Posts: 629
Two separate concepts being discussed, right?
1) The recovery obligations of a FO flying with a LCA.
2) The notion of removing LCA-awarded trips from the available pairings for FO's to bid.
2 is heinous, and affects every FO in category, +/- a couple. If you allow the removal of trips, then everyone below that point is getting a worse trip than they might have otherwise held. Essentially, every LCA in their category lowers the seniority of the FO's in their category by 1. I can't imagine this would seriously be considered.
1) The recovery obligations of a FO flying with a LCA.
2) The notion of removing LCA-awarded trips from the available pairings for FO's to bid.
2 is heinous, and affects every FO in category, +/- a couple. If you allow the removal of trips, then everyone below that point is getting a worse trip than they might have otherwise held. Essentially, every LCA in their category lowers the seniority of the FO's in their category by 1. I can't imagine this would seriously be considered.
05-02-2015, 04:49 AM
Get's Every Day Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Retired
Posts: 1,860
05-02-2015, 05:01 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,299
Two separate concepts being discussed, right?
1) The recovery obligations of a FO flying with a LCA.
2) The notion of removing LCA-awarded trips from the available pairings for FO's to bid.
2 is heinous, and affects every FO in category, +/- a couple. If you allow the removal of trips, then everyone below that point is getting a worse trip than they might have otherwise held. Essentially, every LCA in their category lowers the seniority of the FO's in their category by 1. I can't imagine this would seriously be considered.
1) The recovery obligations of a FO flying with a LCA.
2) The notion of removing LCA-awarded trips from the available pairings for FO's to bid.
2 is heinous, and affects every FO in category, +/- a couple. If you allow the removal of trips, then everyone below that point is getting a worse trip than they might have otherwise held. Essentially, every LCA in their category lowers the seniority of the FO's in their category by 1. I can't imagine this would seriously be considered.
Unacceptable, IMO.
05-02-2015, 05:11 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,599
Seems like the problem RA has is FOs staying home paid Simple solution. Exchange FO recovery obligation for mandatory Greenslip pay. If a pilot loses his trip and is forced to be available for something else, the pilot should be compensated.
05-02-2015, 05:21 AM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 67
Not so simple. The problem with green slips is you have to fly them. There is nothing better in this job than (once in a dog's age) getting paid to stay home. I am not about to give up my very favorite thing about this job, are you? Why should we be discussing a way to make this palatable? IMO, there is no such way.
05-02-2015, 05:24 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,599
Not so simple. The problem with green slips is you have to fly them. There is nothing better in this job than (once in a dog's age) getting paid to stay home. I am not about to give up my very favorite thing about this job, are you? Why should we be discussing a way to make this palatable? IMO, there is no such way.
05-02-2015, 05:45 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,947
In a lot of people's minds, and this is introducing a little bit of history to the scenario, that give and take started a decade ago, with an extreme amount of [mandatory] giving being done from the pilot group in BK. Thus not many would see this as an environment to be doing anything other than taking back what was lost, or at the very least, maintaining the status quo as an alternative.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
