Originally Posted by upndsky

Not always.

At my last airline, the new contract stipulated that we be paid based on when the main cabin door opened, not just any door (which was usually the cargo door since it always took a few extra minutes to get a jetway to the aircraft). This, in effect, increased our block times a few minutes each leg, which over time started adding up.

The company agreed to this new pay method, signed the contract but when it came time to implement this provision, it discovered it was going to cost some gazillion dollars to rewrite the software to pay us properly. Instead, the company came to the union and in exchange for going back to the old pay method, they would add 30 minutes of extra pay each month (this was based on what an average pilot would get extra with the new pay method) plus some enhanced work rules. IMO, it was a fair deal, but our pilot group voted it down, the consensus being that the company agreed to the contract and they should stick with it, even if it cost them implement it.

The company refused to pay for the software upgrade and the issue was eventually brought to arbitration. The final decision: an extra 23 minutes and nothing else. By going to arbitration, we left 7 minutes and a bunch of contract improvements on the table. This, even though the company explicitly acknowledged it was in violation of our contract.

What I'm getting at is that is that what's black and white to us (pilots) may be many shades of gray to someone else (ie. management and arbitrators).

Now, having said that, we should hold the company to the contract and not cave in (again) on this issue. But to say that it's cut and dry is to over simplify the matter. (BTW, no slam on you specifically, ACL. You offer good info and insight into the debate.)