Originally Posted by
MikeF16
If I were to lose a single trip that I would have both wanted and been senior enough to hold, and have to fly a trip that in my eyes that is inferior, it's a loss of QOL. If because trips were moved around in some shell game I'm forced to work a child's birthday, holiday, or any old day I'd rather not then it is a loss of QOL.
I think the way the company has taken advantage of FAR 117 is concrete evidence of how "we never thought they would do that" is applicable. How about the way CS gives out trips to reserve pilots that leak into their following line-holder month at single pay. I bet you never thought they'd do that, yet in this contract we had to give up negotiating capital to get rid of that complete and utter BS.
On the flip side, your argument is the one without basis. You make an inflammatory and incorrect statement without a shred of proof then act as if you're holding some sort of moral high ground. +1 for using gray matter in a sentence though, that was almost clever.
As for your example of extending a reserve pilot into their regular line days off, what is your point? That contractual provision sucks and has been there for awhile. It isn't a "gray area" any more than a GS or OOB WS is. It is a (crappy) stage of the trip coverage process. I should know. I got that "good deal" myself a couple of months ago.
I live in the real world and I WOULD think that they would do that, because the contract allows them to. That ain't the same as the unknown of VBs. They might be great. They might be awful. Who knows?