iaflyer

Here's what the contract says:

Exception: A pilot will not be required to be available for contact during the first two hours of his short call period as follows:
a) At the time the pilot is notified of his conversion to short call, the pilot will advise Crew Scheduling that he will be:
i. traveling to his base, and
ii. unavailable for contact during the first two hours of the short call.

b) The pilot must be able to report for a rotation with a report as early as two hours after the start of the short call period.

c) When the pilot arrives at his base, he assumes responsibility for acknowledging any rotation placed on his line by checking his schedule via DBMS or contacting Crew Scheduling.

d) When the pilot checks his schedule, his line may contain a rotation with a report as early as two hours from the start of the short call period.

who travels to his base under Section 23 S. 9. b. Exception and is assigned to a co- terminal base, will be permitted additional time to reposition from the airport of arrival to the airport at which the rotation originates (if necessary).

That being said, I haven't had a problem calling the scheduler the day of the SC and telling them I'm going to be commuting in during the first two hours of SC. They put a little note on the bottom of your schedule.

vprMatrix

IMO this is the biggest whole in the PWA. I understand why it was "needed" at the time of the merger however it was a complete failure on the part of DALPA to not include a sunset clause.

Speaking with different reps I get the idea that they didn't feel the need to have tighter language because of events yet to happen promised by management.

Regardless of promises made I think it was an epic failure to not put a few more limits on this flying and at least a 10 year sunset for Delta to make their "move" in.

Ralphie

Not sure how I missed finding that section. Many thanks.

Sink r8

Ferd,

I don't mind looking at individual areas of the contract that need to be tuned up, or destroyed altogether. I was drawing a contrast between a great post that stated workrules improvements shgould be the backbone of a good next contract, and the other post which was not constructive in any way because it was a wholesale statement about one contract (that no longer exists) being better than another.

My point remains that we can discuss all contracts, existing or hypothetical, when looking at where we want to go next. We don't need to get mired in divisive and unproductive history lessons about one specific contract. You could expand hour upon hour trying to convince the opposite group in a merger that you really had the great contract, and you really had the advancement locked in, and the W-2's, and never ever get anywhere. But let's assume for argument's sake that you could, with an insane amount of effort, convince the other group that a defunct contract was better... what would you have accomplished, since it's not the contract in front of us?

So again, I'm all for looking at individual aspects of what we have, or even aspects of contracts, real or imagined, including the fNW contract, that we should have in 2013. So I agree 100%: bring in the individual items. But I see no benefit in making blanket statements about which contract is better.

...

As far as how to approach the overtime, my philospophy is that overtime flying should be occasional, and targeted to unusual events (as opposed to a device to compensate routinely for poor staffing decisions). It should be very expensive for the company. Now, the problem is that we allow, with various practices and loopholes, for individuals to routinely exceed TLV's. The people that rely on this become focused on payrates only, and on using artificial techniques to make this more rewarding. The thing is, we should make enough when flying the ALV's throughout the year (i.e. flying the TLV), to make enough. That's what I want: a contract where we make enough flying a "normal" schedule. Now, I do agree that the trip coverage sequnce is insanely cumbersome, and the application of overtime flying is far too inmpredictable. I'd rather we gutt the coverage sequence, and remove scheduler discretion, so that we all could intelligently bid for overtime flying. This should be leveraged through technology. We essentially should be able to look at trips available in real-time, the number of GS and WS and Reserves, and bid for the time, in a way that enables commuters to plan accordingly.

BTW, I live in base, and I can't remember my last GS. A lot of the commuters I fly with have a very good sense for when to put them in, and have good strategies. They know when to stay an extra night night in the crashpad, with a high probablility of success. Seems to me that anyone who uses the GS as an occasional tool has the opportunity. The only people that hurt are the people that have to have a steady diet of overtime, and can't afford to wait for the vaguaries of the sytem to make things come their way.

Sink r8

Of course. If this group as a whole wanted to emphasize some sort of premium pay for overtime, why on earth would 80 hours be the trigger? I think Jet Blue uses 75 hrs as their trigger. The problem, though, is that an airline that institutionalizes routine overtime, is an airline that flies a lot. Probably for the same money.

JABDIP

Sink,
Bar was the Gentleman that brought up the issue of fNWA pilots forgetting about the improvements we received with the DAL contract. Just one question for you: How would you like to fly the same hours for the next year and make less money than you made the last year and fly 40 more days this year to make less money for the same amount of time?????? In a post many moons ago I stated it something like this: I averaged $1350 per day of flying under fNWA rules and $990 per day of flying under DAL rules. Which do you want to do????

Your points in red above support my statement of having blinders on. You have 5000 pilots that have been under a different contract and can compare it to the current contract today that we are under, that could be an incredible resource as to how to improve the existing contract, but we need to just forget about that, no one should care. To that I will say my measuring stick is working 23 years under NWA contracts. That's what I have to base my judgements of the current DAL contract on. You have your basis of __ years of former DAL contracts to use as your measuring stick. 99% of the time our comments are taken as us trying to say we or ours was better, that is not the case here. I just want to see things get better in our current contract. As to the contracts of ohter airlines, we lived the fNWA contract so we knew it. Reading the others is not living it and not so easy to compare contract to contract. Live it for a few years then you can make a judgement.

YOur comment in blue is an excellnt point but then you turn around and say you should not care what was in the fNWA contract, sort of contradicting.

In bringing up these issues I hope to spur some interest in your comment in green. I do want to make the current contract better. Does it not spur any interest about your contract in that I worked less days, for the same amount of monthly hours, at an hourly rate less than I am making now, but had a larger W-2 for the year. Simple poll question: Would you like to work more or less days for the same amount of yearly income with no penalty to the company??? O-more days O- less days Which one do you check.

sailingfun

I pointed out that a large number of jobs were outsourced on a one for one basis. That does not however apply across the board. We need to return the 170/175 to the mainline but we also need to improve the work rules. I have always been a line pilot and tried to fill up. You can see the effects of the contract changes by simply looking at your block hours. From 1989 to 2000 I averaged about 600 hard block hours a year. Since 04 I have been flying 850 plus Thats a huge change. The average pilot now flies 25% more block hours.
When we had the great reserve system as a example the average reserve flew 30 block hours a month. If you believe the forum posts here the average reserve is now flying 69 hours a month. (its actually about 54 last I heard but still a huge increase). All these changes cost jobs. We need to try and win back some of those jobs and improve the quality of life.

sailingfun

On this we agree 100 percent. I posted on here that the Alaska code share that came over with the merger was a huge mistake in the joint contract. That is another reason I voted no.

vprMatrix

I'm with you 100% on adding back jobs and improving QOL!

NERD

Is CUN exempt from the liquid and gel restrictions like MEX, or is it all of Mexico for crew? Thanks