Ah, you youngsters. Back in the day, National Airlines required all flight engineers to hold an A&P. They performed all maintenance at all outlying stations. They thought they were saving money.

I was an AF Herk guy. And yes, our FEs could get in the trenches, but they never did an engine change on their own. That is how I read the original post.

Hey, as a Herk guy, I can't tell you the number of times I've helped push pallets, tie down vehicles, etc. It all was part of the job, and I wouldn't have done it any other way. When you are on some dirt strip in Somalia trying to get out of there, you don't exactly have the same level of support as at Rhein-Main!

"See the world"

Every gawdawful $h1th0le I every went to in the AF, I was either on a herc or a helo. Thanks herc drivers everywhere for helping me see the world.

Happy Easter!
He is risen

Your analogy is seriously flawed. First, figuring out the correct pilot to pay one pilot on a missed GS should take hours, days, maybe a week. It should never take 4 months.

Your example merely involves administrative research to find the correct pilot who should be pay protected. In this case, both sides generally agree to the established criteria for who should get paid.

In the case of the SD memo, the company has repeatedly and unilaterally violated our contract. There is no disagreement in interpretation. It was and is a willful, ongoing, and intentional violation of our contract. They even announced their proclamation 3 weeks ahead of the start date of 117.

This smackdown of the pilot group should've been met with a strong response from DALPA. It was met with a whimper. You want unity? DALPA had a rare opportunity to take a stand that would've had the entire pilot group behind them. They chose not to.

We've already received the "no, we're not paying it" from the company in the form of the SD memo. They told us 3 weeks ahead of time what they were going to do and then they did exactly what they said they would do. It could not be any more clear. An MEC group grievance should've been filed on January 1st. The two sides could still engage but now the clock is at least started. Sure there is uncertainty as to the outcome. That cuts both ways. We can't continue to be afraid to take a stand.

There will be an agreement. There is zero chance this will not happen. I'm sure someone at DALPA is already drafting their pitch to the pilot group explaining how they held the company's feet to the fire and that the threat of a grievance at the end of 120 days forced the company to give up more than they wanted to.

They'll explain that only a small number of long-call pilots utilized the contractual 3-hour acknowledgement and that there simply wasn't much leverage (ironically, this lack of leverage was created by DALPA).

They'll go on to explain that a grievance would've been "risky" and that we could've ended up with a much worse deal.

And that this deal was a substantial win for the pilot group and that the MEC will continue to capitalize on every negotiating opportunity in the future.

Blah, blah, blah...

Thursday is a work day with no schedule check required. The way I read it, you'll simply go on long call at the later of nine hours after your scheduled block in on your phantom flight back to base (the one on which your per diem is based) or 0001 on Friday.

All that said, the Company has waived the requirement for a last non-fly-day schedule check, as that requirement would interrupt a pilot's rest coming off of his X-day.

I had a FE in U-tapao rewire the overhead panel just to get the damned thing started. Didn't work, but his theory was sound, and dammit, we had to spend another night in that God forsaken place... :D

That was VRC-50. I did time at VQ4 also...

I don't think the company "waived the (contractual schedule check) requirement." More accurately, the FAA has stated unequivocally that a schedule check is considered duty. I think it's more accurate to state that the company has agreed to abide by the FAA's interpretation. Agree?


ii. Duty

1. Collective Bargaining Agreement Requirement

A4A asked whether a requirement in the collective bargaining agreement to check a schedule or calendar, or to acknowledge a trip assignment, is considered duty.

Section 117.3 defines duty as ‘‘any task that a flightcrew member performs as required by the certificate holder * * *’’ Thus, if a certificate holder requires that a flightcrew member check a schedule or calendar, or acknowledge a trip assignment, then the flightcrew member’s compliance with that requirement would be considered duty.

The collective bargaining agreement has no impact on this analysis, as this agreement simply provides the legal basis for the certificate holder to require a flightcrew member to perform certain actions.

Flight Duty Clarification March 5, 2013

I agree that requiring such a schedule check is tantamount to duty. To avoid breaking a pilot's rest at 1500 on his last non-fly-day, the Company has relieved us of this obligation and now considers us to come off of rest at midnight instead. As such, the earliest they can schedule a pilot to report is 1200 on his first on-call day (1000 for short call, although they have stated they will not convert a pilot to short call earlier than 1200 on his first on-call day).

Perhaps you are correct. Time will tell.


If the scenario unfolds exactly as you describe, particularly in regards to the lack of leverage created by the union and the boiler plate "risky" assessment of a grievance, it will be proof that our MEC and the chairman are no different than those prior that were ineffectual and unable to produce when it's critical to do so.

That plays right into the oppositions hands and that my friends could be a fatal error.

Perhaps you are not correct and that would give me hope. Soon we will know.

Have a Happy Easter everyone, where ever you are for it.