Originally Posted by
pinseeker
Now, tell me what you think would happen in my single leg DH MEM to ATL scenario. Do you think if after deviating on the one and only leg, I could show up to the gate in MEM, check in and expect CRS and the duty officer to rewrite my pairing if the scheduled DH that I deviated on got cancelled? Or, do you think that they would say, "You deviated, so you are on your own." What if I wasn't able to be in position on time, would I still be pay protected?
You should be treated like anyone who didn't deviate, probably with the exception of GT. Expecting that to be turned back on short notice in every situation is unrealistic (though I have has some success). Regardless of past practice, deadlines or checked boxes, what logical reason can you offer that would justify crew control leaving a pilot to fend for himself or worse, losing trip pay, when he's where his published schedule dictates? That unjustifiable policy was why this change was finally made. The old all or nothing practice covered a large percentage of the situations and was an acceptable trade for the option to deviate. 60 hours notice is more about making sure airlines don't charge us cancellation fees and making sure GT is cancelled in a timely manner - not some indelible notification the company requires to stay informed. When was the last time you asked CRS to deviate inside 60 hours and they said "no"? It's in their interest to allow any and all deviations because most pilots aren't going to join a segment of the scheduled DH (i.e. less work for them). Old system or new, it isn't logical to expect the company to step in and save the day for a pilot who opts to use a different route, different airline maybe even on a different day. But, that brute force solution under the old system left some pilots on scheduled DH legs unfairly restricted from CRS support. Unfair and illogical and we fixed it.
Of course, I can't predict what would happen in your scenario. It's possible this has never happened yet. Because of that and past practice, it's entirely possible the first response might be just what you suggest.
But the intent of this change to the contract was to alleviate the possibility that a pilot might deviate, end up on the scheduled DH and still be responsible for disruptions. I agree this particular scenario you offer is unique in light of past deviation practices and it might not have been considered when the language was agreed on, but it clearly meets the spirit and intent of the change. If it takes a grievance to codify that interpretation, then I say bring it on. Taking a pilot's pay over a technicality, (that's IMO unsupported by the CBA) because he made a good deviation "plan A" and his fallback option puts him exactly where his schedule says he should be makes no sense.