View Single Post
Old 01-25-2016 | 08:39 PM
  #5  
Busboy
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,184
Likes: 0
From: leaning to the left
Default

Originally Posted by Raptor
Old contract all 3 types of DHs were one bank. New contract the mid trip DH was split out into its own accounting. According to NC, you can still spend deviation bank money without regard to bank (treat it like one total) but they are "earned" separately now.

This fixed a problem under the old CBA. One could have a double DH trip with front DH of $500 and back end DH of $500. The pilot would plan to spend $700 getting into position and $250 getting home at end of trip. Then while on trip, a revision which inserted a $1500 DH would happen and it would eliminate the back end DH. The pilot would have to take the scheduled mid trip as there was no other option that would meet parameters.

The trip started out with a $1000 bank and when the pilot blocked in at base, the bank was $2000 ($500 front and $1500 mid). Since $2000 was greater that $1000, $2000 was the final bank amount. But, $1500 of the $2000 had been used on the scheduled mid trip. Thus, only $500 was left in the bank, yet you had already spent $700 so you were out of pocket $200 due to a "retroactive" pairing revision.

This sounds complex and rare, but it really wasn't. It happened to me at least 5 but not 10 times over the last 7-8 years. I figured it out quickly and never overspent my front end. It happened enough on international trips especially that it was a fix item in negotiations. This splitting out the mid trip DH into its own accounting for accrual fixes this problem--especially since in most cases these late changes required the pilot to take the mid trip DH as scheduled. I asked the question and was assured that even though the banks were accrued separately, they could still be spent as if they were combined. We will see the company interpretation once they implement the programming.
Thank you. That makes sense. And yes, I too have been hammered by the exact scenario you described.
Reply