It would also be like the mini rlg that some people get every month with a vto line.

"VTO line" = "Secondary line"

The term VTO went away with the 2006 CBA.

The NC States that this is "current practice" - problem is, if this is "current practice", it is a violation of the CBA. The CBA only allows your sick bank to be docked RLG if your line is made entirely of R days and you are sick for all of them. Including "mini RLG" is a give back :(

Lets see if I got this right.

If you are awarded a reserve line with two reserve blocks, then call in sick for one of them and are not awarded a trip, there is no deduction in sick bank.

However if you are awarded a VTO line with one week of flying and one week of reserve, then call in sick for the reserve week, your sick bank is deducted whether you are awarded a trip or not.

Am I wrong?

Sounds like you are right. But....if you are awarded a reserve line with two reserve blocks and call in sick for both of them, your sick bank is deducted your RLG not what you would've flown. Dat's the current rule. In your example, I guess their reasoning is that you are calling in sick for your entire monthly reserve period. Seems kind of draconian but I don't think it will affect very many folks. Maybe there's trend of folks rolling the bones on those 3 or 4 r-days after they've built up their hours for the month. Who knows? Now, back to trying to figure out the "grid penalty event".

Our biggest problem with every contract is the language. We all see these holes or are at least trying to interrupt them the way a company making billions will when they want to. We get crushed by the arbitrators because of the language. The TA should be voted down just on this fact alone. Why is it that the only section I had no question about was union official compensation?:rolleyes:

So if this is the current practice, why did they bother to change the wording in this new TA?

This has been the current practice for quite some time. I've experienced it, talked to both the Union and Company and it has been this way for some time. As I understand it the verbiage in the TA just made it clearer to understand.

Great Post and he has the stones to sign it.
 

I appreciate the fact that he bothered to read it and I agree with almost everything he says. I also think the fact we open up dead heading on trains as an accepted practice and get nothing for it sucks. I know it is only limited to certain routes. I'm sure the company won't try to expand this. The company will use this practice to decrease our dead head banks and schedule less time between deadhead and operating trips. You know what less time between the deadhead and revenue operations means? It means we get to work another day for free.
The other think Capt Big Stones didn't mention is that we are allowing the company set a new precedent. Everytime there is some complex issue they don't have to negotiate. This time it is NPRM, next time it is the turmoil in Japan, or the price of oil, or some complex trade bill. We need to try and keep some consistency in what we do so that there is less turmoil and more predictability for our crewmembers. This TA has just put more divisions through a crew force who voted 98% for our last contract and has since been fractured by our union doing the HKG LOA, handling the age 65 thing poorly, and this surprise, "out of the blue" TA.

Like it or not, the guy did make some good points.

Funny how he gets accused of falsehoods--yet it's obvious there are areas in this TA nobody know what is going to occur once we agree to this. (Witness the above posts.) He also mentioned some areas that I've been curious about, that nobody has discussed yet. And where there are portions with real or perceived "givebacks"--don't ya think it's worth a mention?