Originally Posted by
WhiskeyDelta
DALPA has told us that this scenario is a flat out violation of 117. According to them, even your jetway example isn’t legal.
This was what a lot of companies and unions were thinking at the time 117 came out. The letters of interpretation came out a few months after 117 went into effect and many companies now routinely add legs both voluntarily and involuntary after scheduled block in.
Your CBA may have language addressing what they consider “affirmative intent”. It may even address it indirectly. That changes the scenario and a lot of contracts don’t fit neatly into how 117 is written.