Sailing, stop being such a condescending asshat, and realize that many/most on here don't have he knowledge of every nuance of he contract that you do!
I would have made he same observation, and it wouldn't have been a dumb post, just uneducated.

5 of the 7 A340-600's which were listed :)as for sale on the Airbus site have been removed, only 2 now showing for sale with an availability of Jan & Feb 2015.

The leash is only greater than 3 hours if they somehow changed the FAR requirement for 10 hours prospective rest after notification and somehow convinced them to agree to a rolling window of pre-assumed notification even though you're not really notified yet. So basically your 10 hours prospective rest will start while you're sleeping or otherwise out of contact. I can't believe the FAA is OK with that, let alone our own union.

Yes this does add one hour, but at the price of giving up the 3 hour notification "hammer" which the company desperately needed an out from. We sold a ton of leverage and a slam dunk grievance win for one hour, when by the company's own admission they could cover the vast majority of long call trips with 16 hours notification.

In any case, how exactly without a 3 hour leash do you get prospective rest 10 hours prior without having the requirement to be notified at least 10 hours prior?

If you are required to be notified 10 hours prior, that is a rolling 3 hour leash.

"Condescending Asshat". I love this forum. I'm going to try to work "condescending asshat" into a WARTS brief tomorrow.

This^^^

Many hours sitting next to Sinca, laughing my arse off. He has a way with words.

R1

Wait, isn't "Don't be a condescending asshat" part of your normal brief to the FAs? I thought everyone included that...

Yeah, that got a laugh out of me too ;)

Richard Anderson says it is a mistake for Boeing not to offer a 757 replacement and suggests Bombardier could fill the breach.

Unexpected Rivals Could Benefit From Boeing's 'Mistake' Not To Build A 757NG - The Boeing Company (NYSE:BA) | Seeking Alpha

[QUOTE=Check Essential;1647726]Our "productivity" is getting out of control.
It costs jobs and it eliminates family and leisure time.

Every time we allow more flying for pay and no credit it just continues our steady march toward no limits at all on the number of hours people can fly in a month.
This TA apparently is going to go almost all the way.

Reference Donatelli's bullet point:
· Adopts FAR FDP limits for actual operations.

That would seem to suggest that we've pretty much given up on any notion of limiting the amount of flying an individual pilot can perform in a month. If its legal under the FAR FDP limit then we can do it. No more contractual limits.

I think that's a horrible philosophy for our union to adopt. I don't want to work 99 hours. I want time off as well as more money. I would much rather have an old fashioned "cap" and then progress to the next higher paying seat that much faster to make my money.
But I'm apparently in the minority.

If every widebody captain was capped at 75 hours just think how many more widebody captains we would need. And so on down the list.[/QUOT

Best post I've ever read on this forum. I wish every Delta pilot could read it and embrace it.

+1

If we all flew less, like we did with the cap and bow wave, we would all take a giant leap forward in equipment or seniority, not to mention quality of life. And probably would make up the difference in pay with an occasional green slip

It was about the 5th post on the subject and guys kept trying to post that 3 pilots are cheaper then two so I admit a bit of frustration. If they made sense airlines would have been flying them.

GS's are double pay no credit to the company. Every airline has to have a mechanism to surge for IROPS. This is ours. Double pay is a punishment for understaffing. In addition green slips trigger a increase in the manning formula.
Going to a pay no credit formula in the initial line construction is a whole different animal. It's not a penalty to the company but a boon. If they could shift 20 percent of the block hours to pay no credit pilots could make 20 percent more. That's as long as you're in the top 80 percent. If you're in the bottom 20 percent your new salary is going to be zero. In addition many pilots would take a hourly rate cut as they move backward.
Its a dangerousness concept to allow. We could simply go to the system SW has and allow pickups at straight rates to FAR's. Senior guys who want cash will love it. The bottom of the list not so much. It's bad enough we allow some circumvention of the cap via swaps and the swap board. Let's not go further.

I see nothing in this bullet point, or any of the others, so suggest that this TA will allow a pilot to fly more hours in a month. All this bullet point says is that the max time a pilot can spend on an individual duty period will be the same as the FAR. From what I've seen, that is sometimes more than the PWA allows and sometimes less.

There is nothing here that would raise the LCW or WS pickup limit.

Just a guess, but I assume that replacing DPA with ADG will give a domestic pilot more days off each month for the same amount of pay. Would that not be a start?

The 10 A330's are the bridge order. At the moment the company feels they have the right amount of widebody hulls. The end of the lie flat mod line frees up 6 airframes and they have the 10 330's coming. That's 16 airframes for new markets. Don't count on any thing else.

That's not the way the current system works with respect to WS. The only trips that you OWN (other than if you check the 0700 box...see 23.E.3.a.2) are trips that are BEYOND next day coverage. For beyond next day coverage or 23.E.3.a.2 trips, crew scheduling does not have to advise you of those.

I know of no situations where crew scheduling can award you a WS greater than 12 hour report and it's yours, whether you acknowledge it or not. See 23.E.4

[QUOTE=Check Essential;1647726]Our "productivity" is getting out of control.
It costs jobs and it eliminates family and leisure time.

Every time we allow more flying for pay and no credit it just continues our steady march toward no limits at all on the number of hours people can fly in a month.
This TA apparently is going to go almost all the way.

Reference Donatelli's bullet point:
· Adopts FAR FDP limits for actual operations.

That would seem to suggest that we've pretty much given up on any notion of limiting the amount of flying an individual pilot can perform in a month. If its legal under the FAR FDP limit then we can do it. No more contractual limits.


This is not correct. The change you refer to is for max duty day. In some cases it would go up. It has nothing to do with contractual Block hour limits.

Bonus points for working in "total unobstructed cohesiveness!"

Are you the appointed by the company to make statements on their behalf? When you make statements like "the company feels..." it sure sounds that way.

You have a long history of "speaking for the company." In fact, you do this every time there is a pending contract change. It's hard to tell if you just feel special having "secrets" whispered in your ear or if you have another agenda in play. Just who keeps feeding you information? And have you ever questioned whether someone might be using you to help undermine the pilot group by feeding you deliberate false information?

United and US do them all the time to the caribbean... just sayin. US uses them so heavily that they have virtually no caribbean layovers.

Their concern is warranted given the limited data given by ALPA to the masses so far (this thread moves so fast its easy for lurkers to miss things), and you are also not as right as you think you are.

That ADG part I like. No argument there.
But we're talking about trips that go out for pay/no credit.
Guys will fly more and make more money but it will reduce manning and cost jobs.

OK. That makes me feel better.
"I'd like to work longer days" was the first thing I put on my survey.

That is ONLY if the pilot has been "contacted." If you don't acknowledge or they don't talk to you, although it's not a "proffer" you still have NO responsibility for the trip.

The Scheduling Handbook says it this way:

"When it is not a proffer, the pilot is required to accept the award or assignment if he has been contacted and notified of the award."


23.E.3.a.2

"A pilot who submits a PCS request for a beyond next day rotation, or a next-day rotation under Section 23 E. 3. a. 2), is responsible for ascertaining whether his request has been granted and acknowledging his award. Crew Scheduling is not required to notify a pilot of such an award."

Knowledge is power.

I asked this exact question of someone about as high up in the company as you can get at the MEC meeting in Boston. That was his answer.
You would also logically think that if someone wanted to feed me information it would be lots of wide bodies are coming if we do what the company wants. Sadly that was not the answer.

You may be in the minority, but you are not alone.

I don't understand why guys want to work that much. It's a sad state of affairs when some clowns can't live within their means, and then proceed to **** away QOL for everyone else.

Pathetic, really.

The 6 coming out of mods are not growth aircraft, they are counted for in the summer shedule. I think the 10 new 330's are to be delivered over a 2 or 3 year period.

If the new procedures are a 13 hr notification and acknowledgement is no longer necessary, then the CNO needs to be redone as well! I don't want ANY robo calls, I only want text messages! Right now a phone number for a voice call has to be on there for On Duty and On Duty @ Rest. That needs to be eliminated.

Scrappy is telling the MEC this LOA will add a significant number of jobs.

Since the first of the year we have been averaging over 5000 green slips a month.

If this LOA is unchanged and passes MEMRAT the number of Green slips will increase significantly, well above 5000 a month due to all of the additional pilots required by the gains Scrappy says we are making.

If the number of green slips goes down in the months following the LOA, any way you spin it we lost jobs.

Even with new hires, if additional jobs are created with the LOA the green slips will rise at least until 2015 when management could perhaps get caught up.

If we went to a hard 75 hours a month, we would have thousands more captains.

We really have almost no PWA limits on the number of hours a pilot can fly.

Mark your calendar, gzsg. I agree with you (and Check) 100%. I was one of the few who voted against C2K because of the work rule changes, and never regretted it. We are our own worst enemies.

Wow. Stop the presses! I'm agreeing with PD, too!:)

If this TA adds a significant number of jobs, then why would the company agree to it? But wait, it will add jobs and require more Green Slips. Again, why would the "never pay full price" Delta management team do this?

Something doesn't add up here.

Manager, that was one of the funniest posts I've ever read on here!

Didn't you agree with me the other day too?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...HpqHlPivcIUIqN

:)

Hey, whomever recommended The Pig and Pint on VA Ave - good call, thanks for the tip!

Exactly. Am I supposed to believe that in this environment (demand for pilots) that they are going to just hand us increased staffing?

Or is it more staffing compared to normal ops, but less than the increase that would be triggered by all the GS flying?

NO to CDO

Okay, I gotta admit I'm a little surprised because some of the usual suspects are agreeing with a con position.

Is there a political reason? Was there a collective forget to logoff? Or does the TA for which there is no language appear to suck that bad?

I apologize to all the usual suspects for assuming you would be just using regurgitated talking points. Thank you for speaking your minds.

Scambo,

The CDO thing might be a distractor for other agendas. Maybe there is no intent to implement CDOs. Just a tool to get our eyes off the real issue. CDOs are so ridiculous to implement or suggest in a perceived pro-safety/fatigue environment, that I am beginning to think that the issue is created to help move pass along another issue:confused:

TEN

youre pointless and tiresome welcome to ignore.

Maybe, but maybe not. I can only speculate that the company realized that they would need to make staffing adjustments in order to comply with 117.

5000 green-slips a month and we have not seen a summer yet under 117.

Maybe when the company told Wall Street that FAR 117 compliance would not require more Pilots they were wrong.

Scoop

OBTW - I am beginning to have serious doubts about this TA but to all those who say "Whats the rush?" I respond with the fact that we have known about 117 for two years, and have been operating under it for 5 1/2 months - this may be ill conceived (still undecided) but was not rushed.

I disagree. After the company pushed us into an arbitration and spent all that money to ultimately came out as a win from the arbitrator for them? They won that arbitration and got exactly what they wanted. If it was better financially for them to not have a pilot in a BE seat, then they would be putting the ER pilots below deck toot sweet so they could sell that seat. That isn't happening, nor do I expect them to ever do it unless forced to do so. This is a situation where they won and then we took some leverage and turned the tables on them to get it back. While I completely understand that the MCRC is not what was on the 330 before, it is better than a BE seat and an improvement.

I could not agree more.