Pre-grievance involves going into the CPO with your rep who gets to charge that 5:40 to the company.

 

What's the PWA reference and SRH page for this? Happening every day on widebodies.

 

23.S.9.b. Exception (b. and d. are the relevant parts of the Exception)

 

FOM 3.2.3

PWA 23.S.9.b Exception

SRH page 80

 

I attempted searching for any pay ramification references for this scenario, where are you finding this?

 

scheduling reps

 

Any time you’re given an illegal assignment it pays similarly to the language described in the PWA for inverse assignments. Look at 23.U.3. Hence why a reserve only gets “A day” pay (first duty period language).

look also at 23.U.6. for some pay examples on inverse assignments (removal of a rotation addition of another). It’s not written in the PWA but any time it’s an illegal assignment it then also leads to the company being required to identify and pay an affected pilot.

 

It hasn't happened to me (yet) but this is how it was explained to me. Scheduling either by direction or lack of knowledge has been assigning reports within the 2 hours. They are doing it because it's OK in the cases not involving non-contactability in the first 2 hours. It could be as simple as the scheduler being too lazy to check or a directive to nullify the PWA. In any case it is a violation of the PWA and requires the remedies described above. The company is gambling that the pilot is unaware or unwilling to pursue the remedy. All this can later be argued as precedent setting. The lack of information scheduling is willing to discuss and refusal to remove the trips is seen as a directive from higher and a "press to test" inititive. They are playing a game to nullify the PWA. If you refuse to participate, you lose. Now, because of schedulings refusal to comply the remedy is only able to be applied if ALPA is aware and the incident is documented.

 

There is a way to push back against this. It may go against the rules of this forum to post it though.

 

Just to briefly summarize the two points being argued regarding the no-contact provision this week: Contrary to others' opinions, I've been arguing that for an in-base reserve pilot, going no-contact for the first two hours while on short call does not magically eliminate the possibility that a trip will be assigned. This seems to be quite accurate. (Whether it's legal or not, or whether a grievance would result in back pay is another story.) In another case, TED74 argued that the placement of a trip that begins before the expiration of the 2-hour no-contact window while on short call would require scheduling to remove the assignment, which is not correct.

Without minimizing the disconnect between CS's practices and the SRH/PWA, and in light of the reality that this is a fly now grieve later situation, I'll continue along with the premise that a reserve pilot who lives in base choosing to go no-contact for the first two hours of a short call RAP is absolutely not worth doing.