Originally Posted by
C11DCA
That may have been the CAL way but for UAL it was the flying FO who was displaced with pay. The bunkie still went to work. Be it a FO or Captain IOE or even a TK trip.
The FAA changed to rules because they didn't like the idea of a FO and a "non qualified" pilot (Captain or FO) being together alone in the cockpit while the LCA was on break. Hence why they now require double augmentation.
As far as just changing to same numbered pairings with FO1 and FO2, that would be an interesting grievance since it changes current and a long used past practice.
Plus for the ultra long haul flying it could be a fatigue issue if one expects to be bunkie, and go on break first comes to work "tired" and prepared to to go to sleep while on first break but now is expected to be awake for the next 7 hours instead...or vice versa....be prepared to be awake for a long time, and now expected to go to sleep soon after departure. No good for fatigue planning.
DC
The FAA rule change was completely arbitrary and unfounded. We had been doing it that way for decades with no problems. They are out of line on this.
It may have been the FO and not the IRO who got FBO'd. Can't remember- doesn't make any difference.
"Past practice" grievances are very difficult to win when there is no clear contractual language to back it up.
The FOM used to say that pilots are expected to report for duty rested and prepared for duty- or something of that nature. I know that years ago when I was IRO, there were times I would show up for a red-eye after not taking a nap- hoping I would get first break.
That too is only practice. I also remember days as DC-10 IRO where we were used as the "cruise pilot", which insured both Captain and FO were completely rested for landing and I was completely wasted. No regulations, or contractual language on any of that either.