Originally Posted by
4A2B
The following is the view from the Block 5 rep on this topic: from his letter
Administrative Grievance 10-02 (Pilot In Command on Augmented Crews): Settlement Agreement
Wrapped together with the TA’d CBA sections, the MOUs, and the LOAs are two grievance settlements. The first, Administrative Grievance 10-02, deals with the designation of PIC when two captains happen to be crewed together, and for some reason, the Captain captain with the highest system seniority is not the pilot in command. Although the affected pilots suffered no economic harm, they will receive an economic reward in the form of hours credited to their compensatory makeup banks, which allows them to pick a trip and receive compensation at 150 percent of the normal pay rate. The method agreed to for determining PIC is essentially the same as that which is published in the latest version of our Flight Operations Manual (FOM).
You're right, the current FOM does state that. It appears that was changed in the recent change to the FOM. Which begs the question, how can the company put something into the FOM which directly contradicts our CBA, if it is not mandated by the FAA/FAR's, etc.? Let them wait for changes with the NPRM as we're willing to do for the complete TA.
The economic rewards you speak of require the affected pilot to fly on their days off. I feel extra compensation should be automatic. Better yet, forego the extra compensation and simply remove the pilot, with pay, from the trip as it currently is done. Why are we giving something up for what appears a windfall for the company? That being flying extra on our days off, albeit for 150%.
My biggest concern seems to be the apparent degradation of seniority. Our CBA is full of loopholes. Now we seem to be creating another. This could have subsequent implications. I certainly hope the NC and the MEC aren't facilitating the company in this degradation of our seniority.