Easy Browngirluvr. BC worked hard last time around. Most of us thought we had a great deal. He did too. I saw several standing "O"'s for him. How soon we forget. He did a great job for a pilot going against FedEx, one of the most profitable company's in the world. He just was not in their class and neither will the next bunch of well intentioned guys we send over the top of the berm. Get some professional negotiators and let FE oversee the process. A bunch of pilots on their first tour of duty negotiating, are going to get chewed up and spit out.

Getting back to the original thread....I had a trip which was significantly pay improved by GPE's. It originally was scheduled to come back to base prior to 168 TAFB. Due to a mechanical we missed curfew outbound from NRT. This caused the usual Asian sched shuffle and we were extended 4 days in the field. The revision did not contain a 34 hr reset and triggered the "no 34 in 168" GPE. Since the original pairing had 4 "not adjusted" rest periods and the extension provided 2 more we had met all criteria including disruption pay as well as 3 extra duty periods. A 24hr pay trip turned into 72 hrs for 8 days away from base. The key is a disruption in the field to a 5 day or less TAFB trip. Pay protection for the pilot is what the grid was designed for during a trip extention.

Depends on what your focus is on. If you wanted to maximize widebody international pay, we had a great guy negotiating. He did well.

But he had to drop some other issues to do it. Scheduling and everyone else. It's also obvious he doesn't care for folks who want to go to the FDAs.

Good to hear. I am interested in how that worked regarding multiple events in a 48 hour period. Also, you obviously got a GP payment from the 'no 34 in 168', but how did the rest of the extra pay breakdown? What I'm trying to say is that trip extension pay already existed in the CBA before the grid. Was the majority of the extra from the 'not adjusted' rest periods? Thanks for the good example.