As I read it, our 3-hour acknowledgment is dead. It's illegal. They can't assign retroactive rest for Reserves, so you need to get your assignment, and go to bed, shut the curtains nice and tight, and sing yourself a lullaby.

I think the questions are:

1) Do we really have a responsibility to be available via phone at any time? We seem to have a responsibility to be available for contact, and we seem to have the right to acknowledge electronically.
2) Who has the right to determine how contact is made under the current contract?

The bottom line is that there are some issues in the contract that are changing because they violate FAR117. Some of these penalize the company, and this one seems to penalize us. Nonetheless, there needs to be a discussion on how the transition occurs, and I think we all agree that it's not SD's prerogative to make decrees in that regard.

I think it might. I think the language is specific to Reserves, re-reading through SD's letter.

With a LC Reserve, there are some obligations to be available (which are not as clear as I thought), but the point is that if you're on LC, you're NOT on rest. Before you do the assignment, you need enough rest. That rest isn't retroactively assigned, and needs to be defined.

A Regular pilot that's not flying has no obligations, and is on rest. Such a pilot getting a WS would be doing so voluntarily, during his rest, if I understand correctly.

Edit: I see it was addressed three posts above.

The rampant reroutes will assuredly affect regular pilots.

Too bad we didn't clamp down on the reroute language on C12. Oh, well, "we'll get 'em next time."

We needed to hear something--anything!--today from DALPA that they're on this. We heard nothing.

You guys may be right. Reading through the interpretation I see that the FAA made an exception to the "prospective" rest rule for regular line holders picking up open time. The reserve green and yellow slips would seem to be affected but not regular.
My bad.

Does that mean a green slip is now always a "proffer"?

Back to my point about GSWC rather than WS. It could be solid gold. If the company wants to maintain the schedule with the new rest requirements.

Not advocating, just observing.

It could actually catapult us in front of SWA.:eek::D

As we get towards another contract negotiations window, the company will try to start exploiting issues that really arent issues. The company creates these issues so that it seems like they have leverage. The company actually starts creating multiple issues to confuse and baffle the negotiating entities. This way DALPA wastes energy on trying to solve these issues.:D We need to keep the eye on the ball and go after what we really desire.

A classic example is a home buyer that wants the house for 20% less than the listing. What the buyer does is offer 35% less than listing and requests ancillary items too (like patio furniture, home warranty, the picture frame, 4 mos worth of HOA dues etc). The buyer really doesnt care for the ancillary items but this tactic confuses the seller and ultimately the buyer gets the house for his 20% off after a few rounds of haggling. The seller is happy that he didnt reduce his house by 35% and get to pay HOAs, warranties etc..

Its all a game! As long as we keep our eye on the ball, RA's negotiators wont fool us.:D

TEN

My thoughts are that it's not dead or illegal if the able to report in 12 hours is changed in negotioations to better accomodate our other clause. That is part of the point I am trying to make. Secondly, could it not also be interpreted that the able to report in 12 hours is "illegal" or "dead" per 117 due to our 3-hour acknowledgment clause? Why is the one more valid than the other in the face of 117?

I don't see either as any more or less valid a contract clause regarding 117. They are contradictory in light of 117. But why does that automatically make the able to report in 12 the survivor/valid?

And yes, I think we can all agree that sd does not get to decide via memo. I am definitely curious about the non response so far from dalpa on this given the gravity of the contract change via memo nature.

The 117 issue has no doubt caused our current contract to be unworkable in the face of new interpretations by the FAA. Since this is such a major section of our contract, one that we've traded a LOT of negotiating capital to improve over the years, I don't think it's appropriate to fix it with just a memo, or a side letter. I think we should open section 6 negotiations as soon as possible. In the interim, absent an agreement, we'll just have to operate the airline as best we can. We've been rooked into accepting cola increases while the company is making billions, the managers are all stuffing their stockings this year too. It's our turn and this is the time to act.

I'm not even sure I fully understand how we disagree, except I think you're saying that our contract has the same force has the law. I think the law takes precedence, and a contract that is illegal is not enforceable. I've only taken a semester of business law, so this isn't a legal opinion. I just remember being awake once and hearing something-something-contract-illegal-unenforceable.

Whether one of the parties has to simply eat their previously legal right, or both parties must renegotiate, I don't know.

SD isn't the judge: I do know that.

I would submit that a waiver could be sought to allow the 3 hour rule to remain, based on the whole concept of FAR117, which was crafted to mitigate fatigue. A 0200 call for a 1400 report is the kind of interrupted rest the whole law was designed to protect us from.

Also, can you call in sick from fatigue (legally in eyes of company)?

It is a shame this is happening. Many of us reserve's have built our lives, recreation and activities around the ability to be out of contact for more than 2 hours. This will have a dramatic impact on many individuals and their family's. (The above is just a useless rant)

Finally, what did we give up in the past to get the 3 hour rule and what is the plan to restore what ever concession we conceded.