|
|
I'm no contract guru, but there are two forms of reroute in the definitions section of section 23. One is "1) delete a previously scheduled flight segment(s), and/or 2) add a flight segment(s) that is not open time (including flying removed from open time)," and the other is doing that with flight segments from open time using the 23.N or 23.O open time ladder.
The first one doesn't require the segments to work through the open time ladder, so I think groundstop would be wrong. Skeds can just reroute you with any segment they want, as long as it works. The second form of reroute uses the open time ladder and segments/rotations have to follow the assignment order. Obviously, when things are busy they'll just pull the rotations from open time and reroute pilots on the fly. Which bring us to our problem of pilots on long sits turning into defacto airport reserves (obviously you don't have to answer the phone while roaming the concourses, but they'll just reroute you via ACARS on the way into ATL or DTW, etc). |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1518469)
In that hypothetical example there really is no burden on the government to prove anything except to itself. It can then very easily claim constitutionality while ruling any way it wants to on anything and self declaring itself the final arbiter. The whole thing is based on honest checks and balances and states have to have a way to challenge and in some cases nullify gross over reach. The interstate commerce clause is one of the most abused "butterfly effect" intellectual over reaches in the courts because since everything effects something in some way eventually, its automatically dubbed interstate commerce.
Give me an example of any hypothetical law, power or over reach of the federal government and I can very easily bend it in a sentence or two with interstate commerce and/or general welfare. Add in a constitutional amendment to correct it and in 1 or 2 more sentenences I can effectively nullify any limitation you can think of. So yes, we all want a fair system of dispute resolution, but when the system is corrupted and constantly rules in favor of itself the source of the power that is lent to it will progressively begin to challenge the process. The pendulum has swung way, way too far in the other direction and a return to a constitutional center is long over due. Interstate commerce and general welfare are being used to erase the 9th and 10th amendments in their entirety. I understand where you are coming from with the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause, but your example referenced the First Amendment. With that, I can assure you, the burden of proof is on the government to prove that its law/regulation is at the very least reasonably related to a legitimate governmental purpose. (But, the way you lay it out, the government would be held to an even higher standard than that.) From your post, I'm gathering that you believe the Supreme Court is part of the federal government, thus part of the problem. But, from what I've learned, the Court takes First Amendment challenges very seriously. The government has to walk a very tight rope when it tries to regulate speech. In the past, while some regulations of speech were upheld, most failed to meet constitutional muster. So, I can just about assure you that your EPA example of regulation would be struck down. :) |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1518684)
My point from earlier though is that if the segment doesn't enter open time, there is no coverage sequence, just a reroute.
Changing the subject: What does the company want from us in 117 negotiations? The status quo is that pay/flight time starts concurrently. However, the reg states that flight time starts when the plane moves under its own power--not the tug's. Perhaps this is a chance to get "door pay"...with the caveat that our flight time doesn't count for duty purposes until the airplane taxis. Is that "latency" significant enough to merit a contractual change? "Latency...." where have we heard that before? :cool: |
From Scheduling Alert 13-08-1:
During each required 10 hour rest period (#2 above), a pilot must determine whether he has received a minimum of eight consecutive hours of sleep opportunity. Any disturbance, such as a fire alarm, phone call from the company, etc., requires him to determine whether his sleep opportunity has been interrupted. For example, some pilots may have no problem returning to sleep after hearing a fire alarm, while others may find it difficult to get back to sleep even if the interruption was short. A pilot who is unable to get back to sleep would be required to advise Crew Tracking or Crew Scheduling that his sleep opportunity was interrupted. The rest period would no longer satisfy the requirement for 10 hours of rest with eight hours of uninterrupted sleep opportunity, and the pilot’s schedule would have to be adjusted as necessary. So if the drunks in the room next to me wake me up at 2AM and I couldn't get eight hours uninterrupted sleep, it's not a call for fatigue, it's a call that the FAR can not be adhered to. IMO, it wouldn't hurt for DALPA to get some insurance on this point and make sure it's made clear in our PWA, rather than let it go and hope for the best (i.e. leave it to the CP to decide if you should get paid because the CP decided it's a fatigue call rather than a situation where the FAR could not be complied with). |
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 1518740)
Gloopy,
I understand where you are coming from with the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause, but your example referenced the First Amendment. With that, I can assure you, the burden of proof is on the government to prove that its law/regulation is at the very least reasonably related to a legitimate governmental purpose. (But, the way you lay it out, the government would be held to an even higher standard than that.) From your post, I'm gathering that you believe the Supreme Court is part of the federal government, thus part of the problem. But, from what I've learned, the Court takes First Amendment challenges very seriously. The government has to walk a very tight rope when it tries to regulate speech. In the past, while some regulations of speech were upheld, most failed to meet constitutional muster. So, I can just about assure you that your EPA example of regulation would be struck down. :) So yes, they may tend to take (most) first amendment cases seriously...for now...but they all but ignore the 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th while basically declaring the 16th the bedrock of the nation, imagine that. Which is of course the exact situation many founders predicted we would be in which is why there was such a fierce debate for even having a codified bill of rights in the first place. Many worried that by writing some down, since you can't possibly write down all rights, that later courts would look at what you wrote as an exhaustive list of rights and exclusion from that list would imply a non right. The compromise was the extremely powerful and limiting 9th and 10th amendments. So to get around that, endless sophistry has been applied for generations to bend reality and make anything and everything into either a general welfare or an interstate commerce clause issue, thus erasing the 9th and 10th amendments. It used to be that if it wasn't in the Constitution, it wasn't a federal power. Now anything and everything is 100% federal because of general welfare or it somehow through the butterfly effect touches something across a state line eventually and therefore is the interstate commerce clause. That is clearly unconstitutional over reach. The problem isn't the court itself though. Its the people who elect the people who put the people onto the court in the first place. As long as we keep looking for a government that is big enough to give us everything we need, we will keep getting the government that is big enough to take everything we have. |
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1518752)
Good point.
What does the company wants from us in any 117 negotiations? The status quo is that pay/flight time starts concurrently. However, the reg states that flight time starts when the plane moves under its own power--not the tug's. Perhaps this is a chance to get "door pay"...with the caveat that our flight time doesn't count for duty purposes until the airplane taxis. Is that "latency" significant enough to merit a contractual change? "Latency...." where have we heard that before? :cool: The ability to use reroutes as the new short call hasn't changed btw. In regard to what I see in 117, domestically, what we need is rig improvements as our protection. Door pay is fine, but is not a solution. BTW, on this stuff, I am not the smartest guy in the room. I'm the dummazz who is responding to a post. |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1518761)
BTW, on this stuff, I am not the smartest guy in the room. I'm the dummazz who is responding to a post.
filler |
Talk about a sales job to the Mrs or mistress
Now I need you to stop everything your doing! I have some urgent news.
Disclaimer: if you find sexual content crass then move along and save your breath. Semen is 'good for women's health and helps fight depression' | Mail Online It sounds scientific so it must be? Perhaps this line of positive engagement with management would help build up our negotiating capital for C2015? Can we hire these guys for some consultant work? Their good if they can sell this. |
Talk about a sales job to the Mrs or mistress
Duplicate post
|
Originally Posted by Vikz09
(Post 1518790)
Now I need you to stop everything your doing! I have some urgent news.
Disclaimer: if you find sexual content crass then move along and save your breath. Semen is 'good for women's health and helps fight depression' | Mail Online It sounds scientific so it must be? Perhaps this line of positive engagement with management would help build up our negotiating capital for C2015? Can we hire these guys for some consultant work? Their good if they can sell this. Best comments:
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:30 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands