Originally Posted by
Underdog
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.
Seems to me they have finally fixed the problem satisfactorily...as they have done with the latest FOM revision. If the senior Captain wishes to fly the trip as PIC, he can bid the line that contains the PIC pairing. I always viewed it as an unjust manipulation of the seniority system when a Captain was removed as PIC from a trip he bid for and was awarded so some Captain as RFO could DH in 1st class to Paris and then "steal" the leg/landing back to Memphis. If he wanted the leg he should have bid the trip. This may not be the example that launched the grievance...but it fixes it once and for all...hopefully. Bid what you want to fly and your seniority will hold.