Originally Posted by
BMEP100
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.
Considering the FAA changed the policy/interpretation years ago re needing a second bunkie for single augment IOE ops, it's the new norm and doubt they care going to change their minds now that has been several years (over 5 I believe).
What has changed is the way the new UAL is handling IOE's, and in violation of the contract and past practice. Hence why the arbitrator sided with ALPA.
So we shall see what the new way will be to comply with the grievance, and if that policy needs to be remanded to the arbitrator if it isn't satisfactory to ALPA, or if a new grievance needs to be filed.
DC