Originally Posted by
2cylinderdriver
Different issue now: It is a duty issue, when a pairing consistently breaks scheduled duty limits, it is also a valid reason for dispute and being fixed.
#4, 11, 48, 103, 108, 118, 124, 126, 186, 239, 273, 279, 337, 475, 482, 672, 673, 2003, 2007, 2009, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2023, 2025, 2027, 2054, and 2073 (2-leg sequence of CDG-MAN-MEM in the same duty period or a 2-leg sequence of CDG-STN-MEM in the same duty period) In September 2007, the sequence of CDG-MAN-MEM was disputed and the disputable issues have not been addressed. The CDG-STN-MEM sequence, while not disputable previously, is now being disputed based upon new times which put the scheduled duty period very close to the 13:30 limit. Based on operational history the STN-MEM has to date blocked in late in 43% of the time it’s flown.
By the way, if you look at the actual pairing it is a revision that made the CDG-STN-MEM leg mirror the new disputed format (duty length) the old style was something like 12:50 duty. The Company just revised this carryover trip to match the new times for flt 5, which pushed duty to 13:28 scheduled.
As a side note, this is the same issue with CDG-MAN-MEM, if they go over 13:30 consistently, the Company needs to fix them per the CBA.
