Delta TA

derg

Apparently a "terse" writer
Staff member
There were rumors jumping around about a contract extension or new contract, but it's not. It's basically a TA that covered how they're going to handle FAR 117 as the PWA was written pre-implementation.

Some highlights:

May 17, 2014


Fellow Delta pilots,


In last week’s From The Chairman, I mentioned we were very close to reaching an agreement in negotiations on FAR 117 and its relation to our Pilot Working Agreement (PWA). I am pleased to report a Tentative Agreement (TA) was reached last Thursday.


As you know, the FAA’s FAR 117 provided a long-awaited, science-based approach to fatigue risk mitigation. This complete re-write of flight time/duty time (FTDT) regulations was the most extensive change by the FAA in generations. As such, many provisions of our PWA were out of sync with this new FAR, which caused some operational problems. This provided a trigger to explore improvements to our PWA.


Your elected representatives, desiring to take advantage of this opportunity, began this process in August 2013 and analyzed, discussed, deliberated and arrived at a consensus on the areas to improve in our PWA. The Negotiating Committee was then directed to engage with the company to negotiate that direction.


During the last eight months, there were over 30 meetings between the Company and your Negotiating Committee. Throughout that time, there were numerous updates provided to your elected representatives. Also, there were five MEC meetings, which allowed for more thorough progress updates, re-direction and re-prioritization in the areas of improvements.


Some of you are probably asking, “How did my rep know which areas of the PWA needed improvement?” The MEC’s Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) on FAR 117 and the affected PWA sections provided numerous communications to you on this new regulation through Scheduling Alerts and the Scheduling Reference Handbook. Dozens of volunteers received training on the new FAR, and were deployed throughout the system to assist their fellow pilots. With this knowledge, many of you voiced your opinion directly to your reps at LEC meetings, lounge weeks, and with phone calls and emails. This was, and is, membership in action, and your direct input was an integral part of this process.


I have called for a two-day Special MEC meeting on May 21 and 22 for the MEC to consider this TA, and a detailed Negotiator’s Notepad will be provided to you once the MEC has had a chance to deliberate. Below are the highlights of the TA:


·Improves Average Daily Guarantee (ADG) to 5:15 with a carve-out from 0000-0200, eliminates Duty Period Average (DPA), eliminates 2200-2359 carve-out.

·Eliminates longevity disparity for former NWA pilots.

·Adds new reroute restriction requiring open legs outside of 14 hours to report be covered under normal trip coverage.

·Increases long call leash to 13 hours for rotations and short call.

·Improves earliest trip report/short call to 10 hours after start of first on-call day.

·Limits short call periods for all reserve pilots to a maximum of 12 hours.

·Establishes split duty periods with scheduling protections above and beyond the FAR and a 7:30 pay guarantee.

·Retains 8 and 12-hour flight time limits for ocean crossings.

·Improves FRMS long range flying duty day protections.

·Improves FRMT language allowing participation in the FRMS development and application process.

·Improves the A330-300 rest seat by providing a rest facility in the MCRC.

·Provides augmentation for a non-ocean crossing FDP.

·Adopts FAR FDP limits for actual operations.

·Improves FAR FDP scheduling limits through a 30-minute buffer.

·Improves FAR PIC FDP extension authorization by providing that ALL pilots must provide authorization.

·Improves NRT/HND deadhead seat requirements.


Because of your input and participation, this Tentative Agreement is the most valuable agreement that the Delta pilots have ever achieved outside of the normal Section 6 negotiating process. Once again, this illustrates that our Delta MEC, at each and every opportunity, will work to improve our contract.
 
The average daily credit (ADG) is a great addition. 13 hour long call for reserves is a good thing. It's only an extra hour but for those of us that commute, the extra hour makes a difference. Overall I like what I see.
 
What does it say about duty period extensions? We are wrestling with that issue at the moment. For a while it was "automatic" if the captain signed for the release, he tacitly agreed to a duty period extension. This hasn't gone over well...
 
What does it say about duty period extensions? We are wrestling with that issue at the moment. For a while it was "automatic" if the captain signed for the release, he tacitly agreed to a duty period extension. This hasn't gone over well...

What sort of extension? 30 min or 2 hour. There are already LOIs out there that should prevent them from illegally extending or charging you sick time.
 
What sort of extension? 30 min or 2 hour. There are already LOIs out there that should prevent them from illegally extending or charging you sick time.

The latest update does change with the latest interpretations. @kellwolf can probably give a better explanation of the previous company position, as I've been off line since 117 took effect.
 
What does it say about duty period extensions? We are wrestling with that issue at the moment. For a while it was "automatic" if the captain signed for the release, he tacitly agreed to a duty period extension. This hasn't gone over well...

We nipped that interpretation in the bud fairly early.

From a few months ago:

It clarifies that extensions of more than 30 minutes require an affirmative concurrence by the Pilot In Command (PIC). This is a different question than the pilot’s fitness (fatigue) which is required by FAR 117.5 fitness certification. It also clarifies that a flight crew member can voluntarily check flight schedules on a day off to see his next schedule or to pick up a trip.
 
That's nice you guys are going to get a vote on it. Our MEC passed about 4 LOAs that related to FAR117 back in January, without any kind of pilot vote. 90% of what was in the LOAs is fine (better DH seats on long flights) etc etc, but there are one or two clauses that are going to be major headaches for the pilot group going forward. No idea why we (well, I actually wouldn't have been able to vote being on probation and all) didn't get a vote.
 
We're hinged on the verge of a revolution the last several years. A little 'fear' goes a long way when it comes to MEMRAT.
 
What does it say about duty period extensions? We are wrestling with that issue at the moment. For a while it was "automatic" if the captain signed for the release, he tacitly agreed to a duty period extension. This hasn't gone over well...
The FAA has recently told us all to knock that (bleep) off, I believe. The McFadden interpretation establishes that which most of us had been saying (that is, fitness-for-duty and concurrence with an extension are separate and distinct issues and processes). That is, you cannot use the fitness-for-duty done at sign-in as concurrence for an extension on your 7th and final leg of the FDP.
 
We're hinged on the verge of a revolution the last several years. A little 'fear' goes a long way when it comes to MEMRAT.

I don't think MEMRAT is assured yet. The MEC hasn't even released the actual language and apparently they are discussing whether to send the TA to MEMRAT this week.

Allowing reports on day 1 of a reserve string no earlier that 10a is a 2 hour concession it appears but I'll wait until I see the language.
 
I don't think MEMRAT is assured yet. The MEC hasn't even released the actual language and apparently they are discussing whether to send the TA to MEMRAT this week.

Allowing reports on day 1 of a reserve string no earlier that 10a is a 2 hour concession it appears but I'll wait until I see the language.
If that's a two hour concession, wouldn't it make more sense to get two hours on the other end by extending long call to 14 hours? That really shouldn't have been a hard sell.
 
The FAA has recently told us all to knock that (bleep) off, I believe. The McFadden interpretation establishes that which most of us had been saying (that is, fitness-for-duty and concurrence with an extension are separate and distinct issues and processes). That is, you cannot use the fitness-for-duty done at sign-in as concurrence for an extension on your 7th and final leg of the FDP.

This is what pisses me off about "fly now grieve later." Here at RAH the company put out a memo about accepting FDP extensions exactly as you stated above. They know its going to be struck down, but until the hearing in July they're taking advantage of the situation. JR CA's are being rode hard and put away wet.
 
If that's a two hour concession, wouldn't it make more sense to get two hours on the other end by extending long call to 14 hours? That really shouldn't have been a hard sell.

You're asking the wrong person. I figured something was going to give in regard to report times on day 1 of rsv. I'm all for longer long call times but we need to make sure that we don't make long call so prohibitive for scheduling that no one ever gets it! I've spent many a day at home on long call as a commuter even with 12 hrs so it can be a very good deal. The company has the ability to convert you to short call 6 times per month (sometimes 7 depending on monthly avg live value) so the number of long calls you get can be greatly reduced if they were to restrict it too much.

Viewed in it's entirety, I'm mostly bullish on what I've seen so far. I hate to lose the 12 noon report as the earliest assignment on day 1 but it's still better than what we had pre 117. Given that 117 says there is no grounds for a mandatory schedule check on a day off, I'm still thinking there's got to be more to it so I'm waiting on the language.
 
@Cav if you think about it, your 10 hour prospective rest started at midnight on day one. There is no "acknowlegement" requirement anymore in the contract. For SC, say you get a 10am notification, that gives you a 12 noon show. It does seem to be a step back, but reserving judgement until I see the actual language.
 
@Cav if you think about it, your 10 hour prospective rest started at midnight on day one. There is no "acknowlegement" requirement anymore in the contract. For SC, say you get a 10am notification, that gives you a 12 noon show. It does seem to be a step back, but reserving judgement until I see the actual language.

I understand how it works with regard to SC but curious how it will work with a trip assignment going into day 1. Under the current system they can assign you a SC with a 10a report but not a trip. I'm guessing we are just adding trips in the same way now. The current language was always 10 hrs to report for a SC (pilot could opt to use first 2 hrs for commute making it 12 hrs to report) and 12 hrs minimum notification to report. Just curious what has changed. Maybe nothing, we'll see.
 
Last edited:
HVYMETALDRVR said:
This is what pisses me off about "fly now grieve later." Here at RAH the company put out a memo about accepting FDP extensions exactly as you stated above. They know its going to be struck down, but until the hearing in July they're taking advantage of the situation. JR CA's are being rode hard and put away wet.

Isn't "fly now, grieve later" based on contractual disputes and not FAR legalities?
 
Back
Top