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.

 

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. 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.

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.

 

Believe me, I get it. I routinely use Reserve as an alternative. I am all about QOL. I do NOT want to have Scheduling hard-wired into my skull. I'm just trying to assess our leverage realistically.

What's becoming painfully apparent is that 117 is generating a lot of unintended consequences. On the whole, it seems more negative than positive. I'm very concerned about 2-man crossings > 8 hours, and MUCH more TAFB with long layovers (Int'l and Domestic).

The number of QOL-busting issues that are currently in play is impressive, and only getting bigger. This isn't a mini-LOA issue.

 

It seems the "we didn't think they would do that" has, once again, entered the fray.

 

and ironically, the very circumstances 117 was initiated to prevent after the colgan crash (cross country redeye commute, sleeping in the crew lounge, etc.) remain legal.

On the plus side, DALPA's sales job for C12 lauded massive percentage increases in per diem rates. $2.10 domestic and *chortle* a whopping $2.60 internationally.

So we're golden, right?