Originally Posted by
Sink r8
I'm not even sure I fully understand how we disagree, except I think you're saying that our contract has the same force has the law. I think the law takes precedence, and a contract that is illegal is not enforceable. I've only taken a semester of business law, so this isn't a legal opinion. I just remember being awake once and hearing something-something-contract-illegal-unenforceable.
Whether one of the parties has to simply eat their previously legal right, or both parties must renegotiate, I don't know.
SD isn't the judge: I do know that.
Not saying our contract has the same force as law or that law doesn't take precedence.
But why does the -able to report in 12/respond in 2 get to survive intact for the company while we are forced to answer within 2, losing our contractual benefit (yes their interpretation meets the law, but does that mean they automatically get to impose it without negotiations or change reference the benefit of our current ability to take 9 hours?). -EDIT: georgetg has good summary of the conflict introduced.- If one doesn't acknowledge until 3 prior, you are still abiding by a clause in our RLA negotiated contract (not both tho) but you can't work the trip (due to far's), and by not working the trip you are meeting the FAR's. They're going to need alot more short call peeps.
How about extending long call to accomodate more time to respond along with the 10 hr far? Or any other type of negotiated solution, whether arrived at via mediation or other. I am guessing that the company wanted some negotiations on 117. EDIT: daldude came up with another perfectly viable solution (well, other than dealing with the FAA to get it
).
or both parties must renegotiate
Thats more the meat and potatoes about it. Does someone get to force their will regarding the now contradictory clauses, or will it have to be negotiated. I am hoping that the reason we got that memo is that this issue (or something) was a sticking point in the 117 negotiations and that all reserves are not going to end up on 2 hour short call contact (check's phrase) while on long call because dalpa didn't fight to somehow address our 9 hour to respond benefit that is in our contract.
And I see your confusion in my post after re-reading a couple of times. And some misunderstanding on my own part. I'll blame it on multiple calls for dinner and kids......
On another note: Didn't sd's letter state that a pilot could voluntarily contact the company without breaking rest? If so, why can't one voluntarily acknowledge a legally assigned trip during rest the same way?
Looks like January is shaping up to be a month to avoid dipping your foot in the reserve pool.