Do you really think this is what our deviation policy is for? I don't. In fact, I'd probably terminate you for it, if I was your ACP. Then, let you argue it in front of a neutral. Good luck.

Yah. Call your ACP and ask him about using your deviation bank to get from your home to guard duty.

On this...I agree. Use your bank to go wherever you wish, before or after your trip. But, abusing the "24-48hr enroute delay" provision of the contract, to get to your guard duty, is a misuse of company funds.

Of course, that's just my opinion. And anyone that knows me...knows what a company stooge I am.:rolleyes:

People wonder why "accepted fares" are so bad. It is this type of activity and openly discussing it on a public forum that causes most of our problems.




We have found the enemy and he is us

Accepted fares are bad because the company unilaterally changed the ground rules and the union refused to fight it.

Sometimes the enemy is them.

What does accepted fares and deviating have to do with each other. The accepted fares fiasco is totally driven by the CO's cost cutters and our Unions complete lack of backing up the membership.

As far as the original question...what does anyone's personal feelings, IE I'd fire you etc, have to do with it? By the contract a deviation must occur within 3 days...period. No other restrictions in place.. It is perfectly legal to use the bank monies to go wherever you wish...anywhere. If you think it's unethical, that's another question, but it is legal.

Yes, but on the front end, you have to end up at the intended destination with no more than 24 hours delay en-route. If you can prove you meet these parameters, then go for it, otherwise you might unknowingly be helping the overmanning problem.

Better apply for that management job ! We need guys like you in the office.:eek:

Bottom line is the policy has never been anything more than an expense that can be paid through your deviation bank if it meets the 3 day rule. If we ever start patrolling "why" did you go to XXX then we have lost another battle. Hence, why I told him to not say "leisure" travel ! No need to discuss how or why, simply is it a valid expense per the CBA. He did not lie cheat or steal, valid terminating offenses. If they deny an expense, payroll deduct it or fight it.

Take it easy !

This has to do with an intermediate stop on the same ticket. If you buy a ticket from A to C with a stop in B the stop in B can be no longer than 24 hours. This is to avoid extending the travel benefits much beyond the 3 day limit. You can't buy a ticket from MEM to EWR (layover 3 days) and then to XXX on the same e ticket.

Everyone whines and biatches about the company not following the "intent" of certain provisions of the contract and then make statements like this!

It's no wonder we are getting railroaded from all angles :confused:

Right. Since the company does not follow the intent, and just the 'letter of the law.' I feel that we should, too. When they start honoring 'intent,' I will be happy to, also.

What is your version of "intent" ? The Company has always worked the deviation system this way since I have been here, I am on 11 year pay. What is to worry about for the Company ? With the further degradation of the accepted fare system they are only saving more money. Deviations can NEVER cost the company more than they would of spent, just PURE savings. I personally think the savings are OK because we have a good, could be better, deviation system.

The Company is changing the way we do things in the accepted fare arena, not much we can do at this point apparently. The Company is and will continue to be on a cost saving hunt. Lowering the pool of money that a deviator can spend is the easiest route to save more.

3 day rule applies ! Pilot's lives are complicated, trying to pin travel expenses down further would be another serious QOL issue.