Originally Posted by
Splash
I don't think you're paying attention. Every rep I've spoken with, and everything they've put out to us, has been clear. The PWA supersedes policy.
Here's the guidance from the DTW reps:
Lacking a negotiated agreement stating otherwise, ALPA believes that the PWA language should be enforced and will “vigorously represent” a pilot who is removed from an assignment and is
subsequently penalized by having a PD (Personal Drop = loss of a day’s pay) placed on their
schedule, and being required to have a “talk” with a Chief Pilot,
Here's the guidance from the MSP reps:
Although ALPA has been engaged in negotiations for over 2 months with Flight Ops to achieve mutually acceptable changes to our PWA to reconcile the differences between the current PWA language and the new restrictions under FAR 117, an agreement has not been reached. Flight Ops has instituted a policy that instructs pilots to self-notify for assignments that ensures compliance with FAR 117, but this policy also infringes upon the terms of our PWA. In those situations where pilots are ineligible to accept an assignment for failing to comply with Flight Ops policy, a Personal Drop (PD) is being placed on the pilot’s line, which can have a negative effect on the pilot’s pay. If there is a CPR (Chief Pilot Review) placed on your line, you will need to speak to a chief pilot before any additional flying will be assigned to you. Because the policy unilaterally changes PWA language that is clear and unambiguous, we are committed to protecting pilots who are penalized for complying with our PWA.
If you are given a PD in response to an assignment notification that is in compliance with our PWA, please notify us immediately.
While we are working to reach an agreement, please remember policy cannot supersede the PWA.
Read that last sentence from the MSP reps carefully.
As I understand it, many pilots on reserve are acknowledging assignments earlier than required by the PWA because it benefits them (hotels, commuting timing, etc). I also understand no pilots have lost pay from a failure to comply with the policy.
In January, at an ALPA new-hire meet & greet, the union reps indicated that there were "…a few" pilots who had abided by the letter of the contract, and were removed from trips for failure to comply with S.D.'s edict/interpretation of 117 and how it fits into our contract. Clearly, there IS a conflict of the new FARs and our contract. And, we all know that 'A Contract Is A Contract'. Until it's not, I guess. So, the question becomes, how many guys are going to have to fall on their sword until we get an agreement on this. If we, as a pilot group, capitulate, and abide by SDs letter, we've lost already. If the union doesn't step it up, and give the line pilots clear, unmistakable guidance, my fear is that we're going to loose this (yet, another!) fight. We are between a rock and a hard place. All we have is the contract. The union must get this acknowledged, and hold the company to it. My fear is that if we fold on this, the DPA is really going to have a lever, and a winnable argument before the pilot group as a whole. An argument that ALPA simply is not capable, or willing, to stand up for this pilot group. I'm hoping for the best outcome here, that we actually get a quid-pro-quo on this negotiation, rather than simply roll over for the company, yet again. Prove me wrong ALPA (that we're going to simply 'roll over). PLEASE, prove me wrong.