Originally Posted by Check Essential

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 construction of the building but merely made it more expensive to build. - See more at: Discharge and Substitution of a Contract - Discharge ? Performance - Contracts

Originally Posted by johnso29

The SEC Championship game is a shoot out right now!

Originally Posted by PilotFrog

Great SEC Championship game going on. Good 117 thing is you won't be changed out of a SC rest into a flight and lose the sc credit now I think.

Originally Posted by Dash8widget

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.

Originally Posted by Justdoinmyjob

Oh, I agree with this, but the problem is, what to do when the Astoria won't take our business but Motel 6 will? All I'm saying is that it's not a conspiracy to find the crappiest places, but that sometimes it's only the crappiest places that will take us.

Originally Posted by iaflyer

I live in Ann Arbor - every time I'm chatting with a FA or pilot of a certain length of service, they always say, "we used to layover in Ann Arbor on the 727 and loved it..."

Ann Arbor is a good example of a nice "downtown" layover if the length is decent. Many, many choices of places to eat, of all budgets and tastes. Things to see and do, places to exercise outside for joggers where you aren't taking you life in your hands (run on campus or in the arboretum). Also, being a college town the place doesn't close up at 7pm like some downtowns. For the FAs, it is safe with vibrant, unique shopping.

I've talked to guys who always layover at the airport at other airlines. Man, what a pain. Essentially you're stuck in the hotel, until you make the Frogger like dash across multiple lanes of traffic to reach the two places to eat. Oh, and no sidewalks because everyone drives by the airport, so you're stuck walking in the weeds next to the highway.

We spent a fair percentage of our life in hotels and on the road. I don't want it to be miserable.