Delta TA
- Thread starter derg
- Start date
PeanuckleCRJ
Poodle Wrangler
I'd be ok with allowing a few of them to mitigate some of the 30 hour layovers, but they'd better pay really good and have lots of limitations on how they can be constructed and covered. That way people that want them get them (a few legitimately do). I've been proud up until this point to work for a carrier that doesn't allow them, but I'm getting really sick of the 30 hour layovers.
And that's where it ends. I need to see the language, but it sounds like what is in the LOA would be an overall step backwards and too liberal in the ability to create them. The pay appears to be there in the LOA. It just needs more restrictions on usage.
And that's where it ends. I need to see the language, but it sounds like what is in the LOA would be an overall step backwards and too liberal in the ability to create them. The pay appears to be there in the LOA. It just needs more restrictions on usage.
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
Ok Sofie.
I completely respect that you feel that your pilot group (which is what this thread was about) shouldn't do them. That's cool. But that's not at all the premise you started out with.
SpiceWeasel
Tre Kronor
Are they safe in the "cargo pilots are acclimated to night flight" vein? Just curious.
Science proves that as long as circadian rhythm is adjusted they are good, so we have been told.
Anecdotally, cargo pilots don't live as long as pax pilots because of back side of the clock flying. Does that include or exclude folks who have normal lives during the day? In other words, do people who keep their night hours on their days off live as long?
Science proves that as long as circadian rhythm is adjusted they are good, so we have been told.
Anecdotally, cargo pilots don't live as long as pax pilots because of back side of the clock flying. Does that include or exclude folks who have normal lives during the day? In other words, do people who keep their night hours on their days off live as long?
PeanuckleCRJ
Poodle Wrangler
When I was in newhire class at DL, I asked about CDO's/highspeeds/(whatever the name)... the guy looked at me like I had three eyeballs.
"what is that?"
"right answer!"
That being said, I'd be ok with a limited introduction with high pay to mitigate the 30 hour layovers as long as they keep the 5:15 ADG bump.
"what is that?"
"right answer!"
That being said, I'd be ok with a limited introduction with high pay to mitigate the 30 hour layovers as long as they keep the 5:15 ADG bump.
Cav
Former Maddog Whisperer
I agree with @PeanuckleCRJ 100%. Give me heavily restricted and profitable CDO's over a bunch of worthless trips with 30 hr overnights.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
You need to switch to decaf. We aren't arguing about your contract. I couldn't possibly care less if you vote against some work rules. We're talking about your claim that CDOs are unsafe. That's not a contractual issue, it's a scientific issue.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
And the science says that being on a night schedule all the time is fine for safety. That's why at XJT, if you had CDO's, you had a pure line of CDO's and were expected to stay on a night schedule on your days off.
But when you start mixing CDO's in with day flying, you're asking for a fatigue call.
PhilosopherPilot
Well-Known Member
There was a guy on the CRJ side who was a dentist by day and CDO driver by night. I wouldn't trust him in either case!
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Agreed. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
There was a guy at Ameriflight that got himself killed doing that kind of crap. Work at his family's business during the day, and then flew a route every night. He eventually fell asleep flying the plane and crashed into the desert.
Further, there's a reason the FAA will let you do split duty periods with a certain period behind the door in a hotel all week, but will only let you do a few true CDO's per week. It's not safe to not sleep.
Cav
Former Maddog Whisperer
People need to see the language before they get all hot and bothered by this. Of course we haven't and that's the problem. The Negotiating Committee and the MEC have created this mess and it is theirs alone. Put the TA out there, let it stand on its own merit, and put it to a vote. The control of information and details must stop before the MEC is to gain any credibility moving into future negotiations. They had a golden opportunity and so far they are blowing it.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Have I said anything to the contrary?
Seggy
Well-Known Member
@Derg,
I am going to assume it was the PBR talking but a few things with this.
First, like it or not, we all have skin in each other's game and business. It is in my best interest for you guys to get gains and your company succeed as it is in your best interests for my coworkers to get gains when we are up and see my company succeed. I got a text from one of your coworkers the other day about a provision in my contract to compare what we have to what is in your TA. This is just the way it is.
Secondly, I really have no idea what is in this TA. Is it an LOA to seek some improvements ahead of your negotiations? Is there language in your TA for CDOs?
Thirdly, @ATN_Pilot and I NEVER said you guys should vote in language that allows CDOs. We simply said that the science backs up the fact that they are safe after you said this....
@ATN_Pilot and I disagree with that statement. That is all. We didn't say you guys need to vote them into your contract. We just feel that this statement is wrong as the science backs it up that they ARE safe.
Fourthly, love you.
XOXO,
@Seggy
I am going to assume it was the PBR talking but a few things with this.
First, like it or not, we all have skin in each other's game and business. It is in my best interest for you guys to get gains and your company succeed as it is in your best interests for my coworkers to get gains when we are up and see my company succeed. I got a text from one of your coworkers the other day about a provision in my contract to compare what we have to what is in your TA. This is just the way it is.
Secondly, I really have no idea what is in this TA. Is it an LOA to seek some improvements ahead of your negotiations? Is there language in your TA for CDOs?
Thirdly, @ATN_Pilot and I NEVER said you guys should vote in language that allows CDOs. We simply said that the science backs up the fact that they are safe after you said this....
@ATN_Pilot and I disagree with that statement. That is all. We didn't say you guys need to vote them into your contract. We just feel that this statement is wrong as the science backs it up that they ARE safe.
Fourthly, love you.
XOXO,
@Seggy
Nick
Well-Known Member
I think the concept of a CDO in itself is not unsafe.
I mean, just think of how we could be calling an ordinary daytrip that reports at 09:00 and finishes at 21:00 after a couple hours sit in the middle a "continuous duty day."
But as we know, it's the mixing around, the flip-flopping of circadian rhythms from AM to PM that cause the fatigue.
Like a crew who flies early morning stuff on day 1, 2, and 3 and then has to report at 23:00 base time on the west coast to somehow fly to the east coast right through every single hour they would have been sleeping.
As an outsider looking in, I really hope DL pilots do not allow CDOs.
Reason being, it's like the phrase letting the camel's nose under the tent.
Even if they are introduced with a decent arrangement of rules and restrictions, they are there. And if something eventually happened where those rules were brought up and some wanted to change them, it's that much easier because it's amending something rather an introducing it from scratch. I'm just thinking of all the things lost post 9/11 when push came to shove and concessions were inevitable and pilot groups had to choose what was most important to keep and what could go if it absolutely had to.
Rather than introduce CDOs, something that has riddled the vendor section of this industry with hundreds if not thousands of fatigue calls over the years, and which if not done correctly, have an extremely small percentage of pilots who actually want to see them on their schedule, I think the focus should be on something else.
Whatever it is that makes some want to allow CDOs is, in my mind, the thing to try fixing first. Perhaps it is the 30 hour layover which apparently credits nothing? Is that right?
An arbitrator just ruled on one of the items that a DL connection airline had going into forced arbitration and the ruling favored the pilot group and layovers that span an entire calendar day went from crediting zero to credit the min day credit of 4 hours. Suddenly an 18hr 4-day is a 22hr trip etc.
Surely the mainline company, which is making money hand over fist by airline standards, could possibly discuss with the union an option to do this without major concessions in other areas.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Have I or anyone else said anything different to that matter?
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Dude, the facts are the facts.
Yes, CDOs can be unsafe.
Yes, CDOs can be safe.
Yes, it matters what happens at other airlines for your own job and benefits.
Yes, we are all in this together.
Yes, what may work at my place may not work at your place.
But that doesn't mean it doesn't matter what is in another person's contract language.
Cptnchia
Dissatisfied Customer
I get that guys are upset about the prospect of SDPs. However, are they any less unsafe than some of the rotations we have that have a redeye built into the middle? We have some that are early morning sign day one, finish late afternoon. day two early morning with one leg finish by 0900. That night, fly a redeye into day three. Layover. Day four, early morning show to finish in the afternoon. Even though we get close to 24 off after the redeye, dY four is still an ass dragger.
Nick
Well-Known Member
Nope, I'm just putting out the extra stuff since one majorly huge operation of an airline and it's pilot group and actually considering introducing them.
I think letting the cat out of the bag on CDOs is a bad idea.