Originally Posted by gloopy

i'd agree with that were it not for the bs about a pilot is expected to avail themselves of this clause only a few times in a career. That is way over the top. If you follow the 2 flights/reasonable report time guidelines to begin with, you will make it to work the vast majority of the time anyway. Add to that the vast majority of pilots who will pad those guidelines/rules in the face of challenging commutes anyway and you have a pretty good system.

Why it then has to be not only reduced to the least common demoninator to rein in the considerable minority of renegade dice roller commuters, but done in such a way that it gives this or any future management team the ability to point to the "rules" and say "you can only use it a few times in an entire career" is insane and it needs to be fixed.

The outright condescending flavor of "you commute by choice" being used to justify it only adds to the negative tone, both now and in the future.

If you follow the rules, you can still miss a commute at any time. The fact that you miss a commute due to the logistics behind it hitting the fan in no way guarantees you will make your next commute. You are still at the mercy of the system. If the airline culls the schedule with extreme predjudice everytime the forecast calls for the remote chance of dot rule shenanigans and/or the airline regularly overbooks or reroutes or downsizes equipment to the point that a regular commuter who follows the rules gets burned more than a few times in a career, that is as much the airline's fault as it is the pilot's fault.

Either we are serious about "unleashing the dna of delta" or we're not and its just corporate double talk. If we are serious, the "a few times in a career" needs to be stripped immediately and the condescending language describing commuting as a hobby bordering on a recreational eccentricity needs to be removed as well.

If you follow the rules, it "should" only come into play rarely. However one can easilly follow the rules and then some and still have it happen way, way more than "a few times in a career" and any company/leadership that cares about good labor relations should know that. The tone of that letter strongly suggests they do not, yet within that there is an opportunity for someone to make it right. Let's see if they do.

Originally Posted by Jesse

As a middle of the road viewer I have to say Fox does a better job of reporting the news without opinion and bias than MSNBC. Take out the Chris Matthews, Maddow, Beck, and O'Reily types and judge it based on just the news report segments and Fox delivers the story more often that MSNBC without the mandatory side dish of their political agenda. In fact, I'd have to say they even beat CNN in that department as CNN brings in left leaning reporters with their bias more often than Fox does with their right leaning biases. Just an impartial observation.

Originally Posted by FIIGMO

I tend to enjoy more in depth reporting of the news and current events. Frontline, 60 minutes etc. It is more of an education than watching Springer type news every night. Again, it is only an opinion and I do tend to flip on CNN before anyone else. Have to support those Atlanta corporations right?

Originally Posted by nwaf16dude

"For many, commuting is a personal lifestyle choice, but the anxiety level can still be significant. "

Originally Posted by Jesse

Scenario:

Given - No JS available.

Pilot has a 1000 sign in out of ATL. Puts himself down for a non-rev seat on a DL mainline flight that departs at 0730 and arrives at 0830 in ATL. The night before the flight shows open seats, but when boarding starts it shows oversold and he isn't able to get on the flight.

So he goes to his back up flight which is scheduled for a 0930 departure and 1030 arrival into ATL. This flight showed plenty of seats available the night prior. He talks to the gate agent and the gate agent confirms there should be plenty of seats remaining (for this example let's say 20) and the pilot should be able to get one of those.

According to the policy the pilot supposed to call crew scheduling now and get PS.

The memo says this should be a rare occasion ("Rare is defined as a few times during a pilot’s career."), but the mandate to call if you miss the primary flight (even if the back up flight has plenty of seats available) appears that it may not be as rare as one would think. I've had to commute on my back up flight on one than more occasion.

Additionally, I don't see any mention of a requirement that there actually be open seats 24 hours prior to the flight. If that requirement doesn't exist can you safely assume that it could be used against you when speaking to someone with company? e.g. "Well, what did you expect, you saw there weren't any seats available on your primary flight the night before. You should have come in the night before." <--what I normally do if I don't see seats on my primary flight, BTW.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about the new policy; I like the fact that I have assurance I can get PS on the back up flight if it's required. That's much better than sweating it out and wondering if you're going to make it or not. But it seems the sweat factor now is going to be "Do I call and get PS or do I take a chance and see if I get a seat since there appear to be plenty available--I don't want to get on the bad boy list as I called for PS in situation like this about 18 months ago."

Originally Posted by Boomer

FOX news for me... follow the underboob.

Originally Posted by sailingfun

In the situation you describe the pilot would have to go the night before. I have commuted almost my entire career and would never go the same day if the backup flight arrived half an hour after report. That would not be legit under any of the commuter policies we have had.

Originally Posted by nwaf16dude

All it does is make him look either ignorant of, or unconcerned about the great numbers of pilots that have been forced to make the difficult decision to either pack up and move, bid down to lower paying equipment, or start commuting.

It's a good policy, but the message was delivered poorly.