Originally Posted by
MikeF16
Was having a hotel van discussion last night with a very experienced pilot who had been rerouted and refused to sign an extension. He relayed how he and his captain were forced to repeatedly explain their reasoning to higher and higher levels of authority before they were finally released to go to the hotel. He also mentioned how using the word "fatigue" would put you into an older pre-117 section of the contract where you would not necessarily be pay protected vs. "unfit to fly" which for lack of a better term, is the politically correct way to say the exact same thing but still be pay protected. I searched the contract for verification but could not find anything definitive and was hoping I could get some inputs here.
1. It sounds like pilots who don't sign an extension end up getting pressure from all directions and inferred threats of disciplinary action if they don't sign (the van story is only the most recent of several similar situations I've heard). Is there anything behind these veiled threats or are they bluffing and hoping you'll cave? Obviously you shouldn't sign a release if you don't feel you can safely fly regardless of administrative follow-up issues, but if pilot-pushing is common then it illustrates an underlying safety issue that needs to be stamped out.
2. Is there some specific contractual definition of the word "fatigue" which should make pilots use other verbiage when explaining why they're not signing an extension?
This is total BS that the extension has become assumed and we have to argue why we can't, under pressure no less.
Had one in LHR last week. Sent the dispatcher an ACARS message after we went over the flight plan LATT (no ext) that we would not extend. He came up with a LATT that was somewhere between our 2 LATTs and while we were trying to sort that out, ACS took the pax off the aircraft, so it became moot.