Adlerdriver

I realize we're pretty much done with this lufberry.

I guess my bottom line is this: I'm going to exploit every aspect of this contract to our collective advantage to the maximum extent possible. Why would anyone do anything less? It's what the company does.

If circumstances conspire to put me in a position where my best option is to join a scheduled DH leg that I previously didn't plan on using (and checked the box), I'm going to do it and perform my final check-in because the contract says I can. In fact, I've already done that on several occasions. If subsequent to that, I encounter difficulties with my DH, I'm going to expect assistance from crew control because I'm on the scheduled DH and the contract also says that's supposed to happen. It can't be denied the words are there. If one of our pilots want to interpret them in a way that benefits crew control or the company that's their prerogative. Until they hit a brick wall in the form of a legal ruling, why anyone would do that is beyond me. I'm going to interpret that language in a way that benefits me and anyone else on our seniority list.
Fortunately, IMO, that interpretation also follows logic and the intent of the CBA change, not a technicality.
After that, if they leave me hanging, I'll go to plan C and keep working the problem until I run out of options. If I miss the trip, it's not going to be because I tried to use the scheduled DH - it was just my day in the barrel. But, at least I'll have tried and as a result I'll have plenty of ammo for the grievance.

There's no valid reason why two pilots on the same trip, same scheduled DH leg should be treated differently because one has a "$" next to their name. It's not more expensive, it's not more difficult and it's the exact way the company planned on getting that pilot into position in the first place. That's the whole reason this change was made to the CBA. A technicality is not acceptable in my opinion.