BobZ

You didn't answer the specific question.

I think we all know what the management response would be, I'm sure someone in legal has the federal district court on speed dial for just such an event.

Second question. If a line pilot has for 20 years submitted a monthly blanket gs request with no qualifiers, suddenly along with all the other line pilots alters that gs request to highly restrictive, or not at all......in your legal opinion what are the odds this pilot is going to be a prime candidate to receive a subpoena from the federal court?

And unless federal subpoenas are in a special classification, my experience as a process server was how, when, and where you served was immaterial.....that you got it served, was all that mattered.

I can also relate that the serving methodology was not immune from strategic/tactical efforts at impacting the recipient and proceedings.

notEnuf

I put in for everything and then evaluate each trip offered prior to answering a phone. I want to be aware of all trips I could have had. Early in the month I wait for a 3 day or longer. When the system gets fluid I may hold out for 5 or longer. Near the end of the month and decent coverage, I might go for a 1 or 2 if I haven't gotten anything yet. The reserve coverage, whether I have something come up that's a higher priority, the weather, my GS#, and fitness for duty all help make the decision.

Nothing is worse than wasting GS#1 on a 1 day and seeing the next guy get a 5 day.

"Technique only" YMMV

Humboldt

Another GS Question

I had a ADP for the 10th. A GS handed out for a trip on the 11th. The trip does report at 2359 on the 10th.

I thought that since the trip is on the 11th that I'd be eligible. Am I SOL because the trip reported at 2359?

Thx,

Humboldt

sailingfun

Yes, the trip reports on the 10th. A APD makes that a hard no fly day.

FL370esq

If you go back and re-read my post, I did answer your question but you once again posted a hypothetical conclusion (pilots pulling blanket GS). You need to give me the WHY are you (and others) pulling your blanket greenslip in our hypothetical forum world.

At some point in this thread, it was pointed out that there is very clear and specific langauge in our PWA (23.Q.8.a to be exact) that says a pilot will be obligated to fly a GS if he/she is notified and also acknowledges - PWA's language not my interpretation. Now, before Gloopy goes off the deep-end again on some tirade to include a side-trip through his concern about 10 hours of rest, I will say again....just because it is written in the PWA in those terms doesn't mean that is how it is applied. And yet again I agree that current and past practice seems to treat the GS as more of a proffer than an obligation if you answer the phone and are out of place, imbibing, lacking adequate rest or child care, etc.

So.....going back to your hypothetical, if the WHY behind your hypothetical pulling of blanket GS requests is because the company has elected to hold pilots to the letter of the contract (23.Q.8.A), I would surmise that nothing adverse would happen to them because, at that point, the company has unilaterally altered the widely-accepted, known, and relied upon current and past practice of treating a GS more like a proffer rather than an obligation once contacted. The pulling of blanket GS requests would be a reasonable and logical response to ensure the pilot is not "dinged" for being unable to cover a GS.

If, however, as was allegedly the case in 2000-2001, the WHY behind your hypothetical pulling of blanket GS requests is to show the company your dissatisfaction with the collective bargaining process, now you might have an issue. However, the company would still have to establish evidence of concerted action among pilots. One pilot alone, no matter how long-standing his/her practice has been to have a blanket GS request, does not meet the test for concerted activity. And yes, in that case I am sure more subpoenas would fly as the company tried to build its case.

As for the best service of process story I have heard, my FRCP professor recited a divorce case where the wife was served on a cruise ship just as she was departing on a 14 day cruise yet had to answer the papers within 10 days or be in default.

gloopy

Merely committing the immortal sin of answering the phone does not constitute "acknowledgement".

Which is, among many other reasons, why you entire thesis of "if you dare answer the phone you own it 100% of the time no matter what and if you can't make it you could get in deep trouble!" is simply wrong.

notEnuf

Schedulers have said "it's not a proffer and its on your line," followed by "it's your assignment, if you don't want it talk to your chief pilot." Good CP - says OK and removes it, bad CP - not so much, OK CP - scolds but then removes it.

DATP

(Don't Answer The Phone)

FL370esq

Lol...your reading comprehension skills are truly dizzying. Not my thesis and hasn't been.

WickedSmaht

I can't. There's been at least three of these....MORTAL sin, committing the MORTAL sin. I know, I know...go ahead.

FL370esq

Well...some pilots think they are God and God is supposedly immortal so maybe he could commit an immortal sin if he thinks he's God. Of course then you have to dive in to the whole philosophical argument as to whether God can commit a sin....talk about thread creep! 😁