It's very legal. According to DALPA and the PWA.

Instead of going to PHX for my 30 hour layover then back; I did an SXM turn and was done.

Yes I got paid properly.

370Esq asked what a "late tag" was, I gave him an example. Not the first time this has happened to me on this fleet. I know of a few others this has happened to as well. Not a singularity.

Drum,

You got some bad info - you cannot be legally rerouted prior to your first leg. I have seen it happen and guys took it and have seen guys say no way. Just think back to all the 23K and No ops of last spring - totally not allowed in the PWA.

L. Reroute
17
18 1. A pilot is subject to reroute as defined in Section 23 A. 45.
19 2. A regular pilot may not be rerouted:
20 a. prior to the airborne departure of the first flight segment of his rotation.

Scoop

I have been burned like that more times than I can count. Seniority means nothing if your 15% seniority trip gets yanked, a reserve gets your layover and you now have a double 9-hour DAY or IND.

so, you got triple pay for a trip that turned a 3-day into a day trip?

boo hoo, I guess

I did.

The point being - why bid a schedule when they just re-route at will.

Why even have PBS? Why have seniority?

I mean if you are going to ask that question, lets illustrate the absurdity by being absurd

Hey Scoop. I didn't have time to call anyone. After the fact, when I sent everything in to the DALPA scheduling guys, they said it was legit. They birddogged to make sure I was paid properly.

That's what I was told. That is what happened.

You could have refused it - look at 23.L. in the PWA totally Black and White.

Scoop

Well that happens too. I am no contract expert and many times I didn't think about stuff until after the fact, but for future reference for all APC folks - take the reroute if it works for you, but by all means know that you do not have to accept a reroute prior to being airborne on the first leg.

Scoop

Scoop....you can be re-routed prior to your first leg as a regular line holder but the Company must comply with the exception to 23.L.2.a (which was just below what you pasted). It sounds like they satisfied that exception in Drum's example.

Correct - that was the recent change but IIRC its basically just substituting a turn for another turn - is that how you see it?

If they just changed turns I really don't see an issue - same layovers etc. Then again once you are wheels in the well you are fair game.


Scoop