Delta Pilots Association
10-15-2011, 07:24 PM
#6541
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,037
This involves an entirely different legal team (possibly directed by ALPA's insurers) and an entirely different and entirely non political error in judgement.
Last edited by Bucking Bar; 10-16-2011 at 03:16 AM.
10-25-2011, 06:51 AM
#6542
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Left seat of a little plane
Posts: 2,431
Why yes. Yes I do.
I'm so disappointed in you for not remembering your own pattern that you've so accurately listed above. You'll recall that this was NOT supposed to be about negotiations. It was supposed to be about REDUCING the dangers of fatigued pilots. But as usual, the original purpose gets forgotten as partisans enter and try to get their goodies in. The biggest example of which is the APA's deepest desire of getting their JetBlue rule inserted to INCREASE the amount of work pilots can do by 2 hours.
But this process was SUPPOSED to be about REDUCING fatigue. As you correctly point out, their study does not say that 10 hours is less fatiguing than 8. Thus this process is not science based to reduce fatigue. It is politically based and used the ABSENCE of science to conclude that they must be right to increase pilots hours by 2. As usual, ALPA took their eye off the ball and caved in so that they can keep their coveted "seat at the table".
As I've stated earlier, you're making the mistake of buying in to the evolution of this process as some kind of contract negotiations. It was NOT supposed to be that. It was supposed to be a rule making process to REDUCE pilots fatigue. Instead, it devolved into an avenue for the ATA to get their most coveted desire, then try to "balance out" this huge win by letting go of far less meaningful items.
Carl
I'm so disappointed in you for not remembering your own pattern that you've so accurately listed above. You'll recall that this was NOT supposed to be about negotiations. It was supposed to be about REDUCING the dangers of fatigued pilots. But as usual, the original purpose gets forgotten as partisans enter and try to get their goodies in. The biggest example of which is the APA's deepest desire of getting their JetBlue rule inserted to INCREASE the amount of work pilots can do by 2 hours.
But this process was SUPPOSED to be about REDUCING fatigue. As you correctly point out, their study does not say that 10 hours is less fatiguing than 8. Thus this process is not science based to reduce fatigue. It is politically based and used the ABSENCE of science to conclude that they must be right to increase pilots hours by 2. As usual, ALPA took their eye off the ball and caved in so that they can keep their coveted "seat at the table".
As I've stated earlier, you're making the mistake of buying in to the evolution of this process as some kind of contract negotiations. It was NOT supposed to be that. It was supposed to be a rule making process to REDUCE pilots fatigue. Instead, it devolved into an avenue for the ATA to get their most coveted desire, then try to "balance out" this huge win by letting go of far less meaningful items.
Carl
You really didn't address a single one of his points.
What is so holy about 8 hours anyway? Did Moses bring that FAR on tablets from the mountainside. That rule is fairly arbitrary and was written decades ago, probably just suggested by a long-forgotten and long-dead congressional aide. Yet we cling to it as if it were holy writ.
DUTY DAY and a respect for circadian rhythms is all that matters, and these new rules actually address that--UNlike the current ones. Not one guy complaining about the new FT/DT rules ever mentions how unsafe the CURRENT rules are, especially for those carriers that love to fly guys 8 legs a day in a 16 hour work day (which our contract wouldn't allow)--but hey, since block time is < 8 hours, it's "Safe!"
If and when the new rules are finally made law, I'm sure there will be such an "outcry" at DAL (and every other airline for that matter) when the new rules result in ATL-LAX-ATL or DTW-LAS-DTW turns paying 8.5-9.5 hours, that they MIGHT even trickle down to more than the top 10% in each category.
10-25-2011, 07:06 AM
#6543
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,341
As someone who flies to FAR limitations daily, I know I would be less fatigued if I was on duty for less than 16 hours but I flew up to, say 10 hours.
For me, it's not the flying that is fatiguing, it's the sitting and waiting. I will be doing a trip with a 5:35 show 1 leg to 3 hour sit then 1 leg to outstation. Because I have to get up so early, it would be easier to keep going rather than hurry up and wait.
The next day, I have another 3 hour sit after an initial early leg, and duty off at 20:40...
More flying and less duty is a better use of my time anyways, I think we have all seen enough airports to last our lifetimes.
For me, it's not the flying that is fatiguing, it's the sitting and waiting. I will be doing a trip with a 5:35 show 1 leg to 3 hour sit then 1 leg to outstation. Because I have to get up so early, it would be easier to keep going rather than hurry up and wait.
The next day, I have another 3 hour sit after an initial early leg, and duty off at 20:40...
More flying and less duty is a better use of my time anyways, I think we have all seen enough airports to last our lifetimes.
10-25-2011, 07:12 AM
#6544
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: DAL
Posts: 43
Herkflyr made some good points- brought up some things I hadn't given much thought to.
In addition to the respect for circadian rhythm (which the airlines have ZERO respect for in scheduling),
I wouldn't mind doing a ATL-LAX-ATL turn worth 10 hours and only having to fly a total of 7 days a month. This is all assuming that it is at a much higher pay rate 50% + on new contract.
It would force company to have efficient schedules also instead of the 10-11 hour three day trip with a red-eye that they seem so fond of on my equipment.
In addition to the respect for circadian rhythm (which the airlines have ZERO respect for in scheduling),
I wouldn't mind doing a ATL-LAX-ATL turn worth 10 hours and only having to fly a total of 7 days a month. This is all assuming that it is at a much higher pay rate 50% + on new contract.
It would force company to have efficient schedules also instead of the 10-11 hour three day trip with a red-eye that they seem so fond of on my equipment.
10-25-2011, 07:03 PM
#6545
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 737 Capt
Posts: 1,166
Herkflyr made some good points- brought up some things I hadn't given much thought to.
In addition to the respect for circadian rhythm (which the airlines have ZERO respect for in scheduling),
I wouldn't mind doing a ATL-LAX-ATL turn worth 10 hours and only having to fly a total of 7 days a month. This is all assuming that it is at a much higher pay rate 50% + on new contract.
It would force company to have efficient schedules also instead of the 10-11 hour three day trip with a red-eye that they seem so fond of on my equipment.
In addition to the respect for circadian rhythm (which the airlines have ZERO respect for in scheduling),
I wouldn't mind doing a ATL-LAX-ATL turn worth 10 hours and only having to fly a total of 7 days a month. This is all assuming that it is at a much higher pay rate 50% + on new contract.
It would force company to have efficient schedules also instead of the 10-11 hour three day trip with a red-eye that they seem so fond of on my equipment.
10-25-2011, 07:07 PM
#6546
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
10-25-2011, 08:19 PM
#6547
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 533
Not criticizing Delta just making an observation based on MIT facts. Sounds like you guys want an award winning contract but you are one of the least productive pilot groups. Take a look at these two charts:
http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2...er%20Month.htm
http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2...ity%202010.htm
If I were you all I would force crew scheduling to be more efficient, but also offer up some increased productivity for a better contract. I know the hard corp legacy union chest beaters will say that increased productivity costs jobs, but wouldn't you agree that you could use increased productivity as a carrot for a better contract, and increased organic growth with your new charge for better scope.
http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2...er%20Month.htm
http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2...ity%202010.htm
If I were you all I would force crew scheduling to be more efficient, but also offer up some increased productivity for a better contract. I know the hard corp legacy union chest beaters will say that increased productivity costs jobs, but wouldn't you agree that you could use increased productivity as a carrot for a better contract, and increased organic growth with your new charge for better scope.
10-25-2011, 10:45 PM
#6548
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
But the second you throw in a hour or two duty day relief for "beyond control of the company" and/or allow EVEN MORE block hours, not to mention fantasy based circadian reset windows and/or add in 3 hour 2 pilot ETOPS to these new higher block hour days and it quickly becomes a net safety decrease in some areas to help "pay for" net safety increases in other areas.
10-25-2011, 10:49 PM
#6549
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
Not criticizing Delta just making an observation based on MIT facts. Sounds like you guys want an award winning contract but you are one of the least productive pilot groups. Take a look at these two charts:
http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2...er%20Month.htm
http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2...ity%202010.htm
If I were you all I would force crew scheduling to be more efficient, but also offer up some increased productivity for a better contract. I know the hard corp legacy union chest beaters will say that increased productivity costs jobs, but wouldn't you agree that you could use increased productivity as a carrot for a better contract, and increased organic growth with your new charge for better scope.
http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2...er%20Month.htm
http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2...ity%202010.htm
If I were you all I would force crew scheduling to be more efficient, but also offer up some increased productivity for a better contract. I know the hard corp legacy union chest beaters will say that increased productivity costs jobs, but wouldn't you agree that you could use increased productivity as a carrot for a better contract, and increased organic growth with your new charge for better scope.
How many average days off do SWA pilots get? And that's with ONE fleet type. Give ALL of us that many days off on average, build narrowbody pairings to SWA standards and then maybe the company can squeal about how unproductive we are.
10-26-2011, 05:10 AM
#6550
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 243
Not criticizing Delta just making an observation based on MIT facts. Sounds like you guys want an award winning contract but you are one of the least productive pilot groups. Take a look at these two charts:
http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2...er%20Month.htm
http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2...ity%202010.htm
If I were you all I would force crew scheduling to be more efficient, but also offer up some increased productivity for a better contract. I know the hard corp legacy union chest beaters will say that increased productivity costs jobs, but wouldn't you agree that you could use increased productivity as a carrot for a better contract, and increased organic growth with your new charge for better scope.
http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2...er%20Month.htm
http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2...ity%202010.htm
If I were you all I would force crew scheduling to be more efficient, but also offer up some increased productivity for a better contract. I know the hard corp legacy union chest beaters will say that increased productivity costs jobs, but wouldn't you agree that you could use increased productivity as a carrot for a better contract, and increased organic growth with your new charge for better scope.
In addition to what gloopy said, all of our 3 and 4 man crewed flights really skew the numbers and make the comparison between like companies difficult and dislike companies (I.e. domestic only) impossible.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
