Originally Posted by
Jughead135
This part is incorrect.
23.V.5. splits into two parts, "non-holiday" (sub-para a.) and "holiday" (sub-para b.) application. Several places refer to the 23.I.10.a.Exception list of "holidays." While they may not be able to auto-deny it like with an APD, it certainly can cause a denial. (In short, swapping out of trips affected by the APD holidays have to compare day-by-day, instead of the overall amount of "negative" coverage.)
For the OP, this is moot. He's posted that PCS took his request, so: winning!
Yeah, we may as well try to get phases of the moon and planetary alignment indexes added to PWA 23 in the next contract. Wouldn't complicate it anymore than as currently written. Meanwhile, gaping holes exist in other language that allows the company to interpret whatever they want. Often aided by non-codified "gentlemen's agreements" with DALPA that fall under "that's how we've always done it". Missing a GS and getting single pay while the PWA says "made whole" comes to mind.
The icing on the cake with scheduling stuff, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, is that the average scheduler knows less about how this stuff works than my high school kid. I've been told some amazingly/exceedingly wrong info by schedulers and even scheduling supervisors...often with an attitude about it to boot.
OK, rant over. As you said, at least the OP got his SWP....despite the expert info from the scheduler he talked to. This stuff should be way, WAY simpler.