SRH page 79 talks about this as well.

This is fairly cut and dry. The contract itself, not so much.

23S5d1, as previously posted, mentions “telephone contact from crew scheduling.” I’m totally in agreement of what we’re supposed to do in practice and I won’t undermine it, but, nowhere does that phrase say to me that it is a human or robot calling a telephone. Thank god for the SRH offering clarification out of the aether.

The SRH is contractual.

It is, until CS decides its language doesn't benefit them, then they tell you "we only go by the PWA."

They openly ignored the PWA too. The SRH is a company approved contract supplement no different than an LOA or MOU. It doesn't matter if they SAY it isn't. It is.

1) it carries the full weight of the PWA, it’s been agreed to as the interpretations of the language at the highest levels in scheduling

2) the RLA stipulates “fly now, grieve later,” except that if you look at the beginning of rhe SRH you’ll find the “walk away” items.

with the exception to the exceptions, stand your ground as able then submit a crew assist pay / pre-grieve, then submit to STS.

I totally agree, I am just refeerring to exactly how far referrencing the SRH normally gets me with CS. Not saying they are right. I did wish there were something in writing to point to, other than just saying that I have been assured that it is binding.

I suppose you ask them to prove otherwise, or connect you to a supervisor.

rumor has it (ha, I’m absolutely certain a CPO would do this), a CPO told a pilot the PWA doesn’t apply during IROPs.

The company culture is simply to ignore their deals when it’s inconvenient. And to think the MEC wanted to sit with the company and negotiate an IROP LOA. 😆

I understand this, but the SRH derives its information from the PWA. It is “second hand” in that way, even though it IS binding. The SRH won’t say ADG is 5:10 because the PWA doesn’t say that. It can clarify language that’s IN the PWA, but it can’t change the content of the PWA.

How can the source document not say that there’s a human in XYZ case and a robot in ABC case? Both cases are “telephone contact.”

I think the differentiator is this:

23.S.5.c (conversion to SC) says “attempted contact by crew scheduling”

23.S.5.d (notification of assignment to open time) says “telephone contact from crew scheduling”.

Apparently “attempted contact” can include CNO, while telephone contact is more explicit that it must come from a live scheduler.