I completely agree. I wrote a strongly worded email to my reps. The idea that the company can just ignore part of the contract is unacceptable. Second, the reps need to provide the Negotiating Committee with clear guidance that FAR 117 isn't something to just rollover on.

This issue are why we have a union to go to bat for us - I hope that ALPA can work and get an acceptable solution, but not one that has us giving everything up.

If crew members would start calling in fatigued or taking delays due to poor accommodations it would be changed PDQ, but as it stands we have a very apathetic and lazy pilot group!

Textbook answer in common law regarding changes to contractual obligations forced by a change in statutory law:

A contract is discharged when its performance is made illegal by a subsequent change in the law. For example, suppose there is a contract to construct a three story building at a particular place. Prior to beginning construction, a zoning law is passed which prohibits such a building in this area. The contract would be discharged. However, a change of law that merely increases the cost of one of the parties is not a “change of law” that discharges the contract. For example, Mack made a contract with Richard to build an apartment house for a specific price. A number of serious apartment house fires later occurred in the city, and an ordinance was adopted by the city council increasing the fire precautions that had to be taken in the construction of a new building. Compliance with these new requirements would make the construction of the apartment house for Richard more expensive than Mack had originally contemplated. Is Mack discharged from the contract to build the apartment house? No. Mack must perform the contract even though it has been made more expensive to do so because of the change of law. Mack is not discharged from the contract, because the change of law did not prohibit the construc*tion of the building but merely made it more expensive to build. - See more at: Discharge and Substitution of a Contract - Discharge ? Performance - Contracts

I'd say starting on January 1 we now have a 19 hour long call. Management can easily get around this by simply having more pilots on short call. This will definitely increase their costs but a contract is a contract. So be it.

Our contract cannot be changed by an "All Pilots Letter."

If FAR 117 is making our contract more difficult to follow and more expensive and management wants to negotiate some modifications to comply with the new FAR then I would say "what are you willing to give up for that?" Show me the money.

As I understand it - yes. Slips are voluntary and by accepting one you are taking responsibility for being rested. If the company assigns you flying, however, they become responsible for ensuring you have the required 10 hours. BTW - This means that JA's will need to be given at least 10 hours notice as well.

I don't think we should be giving up any QOL issues, we've given enough. Getting a small pay raise is not worth a further reduction in our time at home.

ALPA needs to send a strong message to the company. It cost money to staff this airline and we will not be available at BK wages and work rules forever.

Classic pilot squeaky wheel syndrome. I remember pilots on the old DALPA forum complaining about the "long" drive in and out on shorter layovers. I spoke to the hotel guy in ATL and he said that all the FCRs for New York were from pilots complaining that they had to drive downtown for 1300 hour layover and they'd rather save the traffic time and stay at the airport. I asked why he didn't have any complaints about the airport hotel being a real POS with lousy food and nothing around it and he said they did but the complaints for the long drive time and short layover times downtown far outweighed every other complaint in New York, even issues with Golden Touch! He said it's a trial basis for the new times and that the FCRs were clear from pilots not wanting to go downtown for less than 14-15 hours. He said it was an all new hotel next to the old one but in the same area. My takeaway is that I'm going to blame older slam-clickers for not wanting to take the drive downtown. Even after a redeye I'd rather be able to get up and find food somewhere on my own than be held hostage to hotel food. I wanted to blame him but he said the pilots keep complaining and this is the complaint - too long a drive time - Delta's response....more time at the airport. I guess we need to write FCRs saying the pilot I'm flying with is a TOD candidate and they should ignore his whining because the rest of us like to actually be able to leave the hotel and do something.

Not ****ed about it at all. I find it a bit comical actually.

He made it a point to proclaim that he was leaving the forum some time back (were we supposed to give him a send off?). He then returns to bring us an important issue (more important than the "whining about everything"), even though this issue would have undoubtedly been brought up by any number of other people here.

But the best part of it all is, at the very same time as coming back with his important message, he goes and slams everybody posting here with his comment of "What I find here is the same usual whining about everything" and jabs at someone's dislike for the CLT layover. No case of mistaken identity with slowplay at all with the return of his usual comments.



I definitely agree that this is an important issue. Hopefully it will be the 2x4 that some need to realize that constructive engagement on the company's part appears very lacking as of late.

As other's have been touching on, there is a way to comply with the contract and FAR's. It just isn't to the company's liking.

For me, no realistic amount of money can make it OK to sit long call tethered to a beeper. That's a massive QOL concession that we'd never, ever get back.

The contract doesn't specifically give a nine hour uncontactable window for long calls - it's more of an implied thing. What it does say though, is that a long call pilot does not have to acknowledge an assignment until 3 hours prior to report. Starting next month, if you wait until you are within 10 hours of report (but more than 3) to acknowledge your assignment, you are no longer legal to fly the trip. BUT, you are still well within the your contractual rights - discipline wise, the company cannot do thing to you. And, as long as you don't actually fly the trip, the FAA could care less.

The company cannot ignore our contract in this case nor can they just unilaterally impose a two hour acknowledgement window - they are just hoping that as a pilot group we cooperate. Remember they cannot require you do something that is A. Illegal and B. Not in our contract.