Mainline, yes. I believe the check-in is 90 minutes prior at the gate. DCI or offline depends solely on their guidance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

They either have proof or they don't. I'd contend that they absolutely don't in their ridiculous lookback witch hunt nonsense, and take it to the system board, all day long.

OTOH, if they DO have proof of an actual offense, then use that actual instance to pursue fair and appropriate discipline. But sorry, they simply don't get to pull years of non rev records and use that as comprehensive proof of past crimes. That's insane and cannot be tolerated.

They can propose anything they want.

So can we.

I'd actually be somewhat receptive to some sort of reasonable verification system for SC...if and only if it included a reduction in monthly SC's. Otherwise, not interested.

Anecdotal, barely circumstantial, and therefore substantively irrelevant.


Agree.

But you don't know that and can't know that. Therefore its irrelevant and BS witch hunting. Hold them fully accountable for the times they got busted. But using fantasy hypotheticals based on anecdotal evidence (or on lack of proof of innocence) is a grave and present danger to everyone on every issue going forward.

The guys that abuse it by sitting SC way out of position are punks and should get serious time off for even early offenses. But we just can't use this kind of overzealous nonsense to prove guilt because they can't prove innocence. Not for this, not for anything.

Zero.

But representation, even aggressive and expensive, isn't "bargaining capital" and we can't EVER allow the company to take hostages for any issue in an attempt to use as a bargaining tool.

Wrong. You simply can not prove to the extent its necessary to prove something happened with idiotic retroactive lookbacks based on circumstantial evidence like this.

Over the years I've taken a train once, several states away (and know others who have several times, mostly in the NE but whatever) as well as drove relatively long distances both myself as well as bumming a ride from someone else, again several states away. A couple times I bought an airline ticket too, and once even a ride on a GA plane, although that was largely pre planned. In any case, the appearance of impropriety, however reasonable it may be to conclude, is irrelevant in establishing concrete proof necessary to fire someone. It simply has to be that way.

We need to throw everything we have at defending against that sort of insanity. Not because the few guys in question who actually got busted for being idiots (and screwing their fellow pilots) "deserve" to get off (they don't and they won't) but because process matters (a LOT) and we can't stand for this type of process. Period.

 

Gloopy,

Sooooooo, if the company cannot find any instance in the past 40+ short call assignments of a pilot using nonrev, kcm (etc) or asking for receipts of travel on other modes of transportation such as credit card statements, then the pilot should get a pass? I don't think so. You cannot tell me that there will not be some kind of paper trail to prove commuting to at least half of those short calls.

You cannot, with a straight face, tell me that a pilot who lives States away from his base is going to pay for his own transportation to sit short call 40+ times and not EVER use kcm or nonrev. And even if s/he did, there would be some kind of paper trail. As an example, if one decided to buy a ticket on another airline, not only would s/he probably use kcm to get through security, there would also be a paper trail via paying with a CC. How many people pay cash now.....

Denny

 

Let's see:

- You need to be at the ticket/check-in counter at least 75 minutes prior. You will need to pay for the departure tax (roughly $38) for any jumpseat (mainline or DCI) via credit card (no payroll deduct for J/S up there).

- As for offline, Air Canada requires you to call their 800 number to list and pre-pay the departure tax.

- You can ride in the cockpit only on mainline.

- Global Entry saves time with US Customs pre-clearance. NEXUS saves time by getting you into the Canadian equivalent of TSA-Pre (and gets you Global Entry for $50...half-the cost of Global Entry. Weird, eh?)

- If you are in uniform you will get into a priority line but Canadians are freakishly compliant and do not believe in "crew cutting" so you will have to suck it up, eh?

That's all that comes to mind at this point....Good luck/Bon chance. 😊

 

Exactly the info that I need. Thanks.

Scoop

 

So if every time they actually showed up in base they leave a digital trail - dozens and dozens of times - every time, but they show zero for short call times, you call that barely circumstantial?

Once - yes I agree, twice - lets give them the benefit of the doubt, but dozens and dozens of times over years - not buying it.

You totally downplay the company asking for ways to mitigate this in the future:

"They can propose anything that they want."

I will hope every DAL Pilot will remember that the next time they have to verify a sick call at great inconvenience or some guy gets the run around trying to put in for legitimate MIL LV.

There is a reason our contract went downhill in these areas - it is not hypothetical. Stand by for reserve going downhill also.

I normally agree with your posts, so much so that someone once joked we were one and the same, but I respectfully disagree with you 100% on this issue.

Scoop

 

We simply have to defend the pilots in question on this type of nonsense. Retroactive digital footprints that fail to prove an affirmative defense after the fact is simply an indefensible way to go after anyone, even if they probably deserve it.

Process matters, and its simply asinine to discipline someone because they lack a provable affirmative defense. We cannot tolerate that, not now not ever. If someone is a punk (thief, dirt bag, low life, etc) and they acknowledge SC knowing there is zero chance they can make it, I have little sympathy for them and think they should be punished. But this is not the way.

Make a (fair and reasonable, but appropriate) example out of those special few who walked that tightrope without a net and fell. But a "you couldn't retroactively prove you commuted in the past therefore you're fired" is an attack so heinous and unreasonable that if we didn't defend it, we'd be coughing up some serious DRF dues in those guy's future suits against the association.

This is so clear and obvious and egregious even the least competent, over worked, mentally checked out, bow tie wearing, pony tail public defender would be all over it. ALPA has to be too, because they can not be allowed to go after anyone, for anything, in this fashion.

 

Gloopy, I don't think you are using the concept of "affirmative defense" properly (To quote Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride, " You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."). When one asserts an affirmative defense, one is saying, "Yup, I did it but here is my justifiable excuse [the statute of limitations has run; I was insane; it was in self-defense; adverse possession; statute of frauds, etc]. The burden of proving an affirmative defense actually falls on the party asserting it...and, if you can't prove it, it ain't an affirmative defense....or at least not a very good one. 😊

However, I believe you are referencing the SC audit and not the actual failure to fly a SC assignment by the 4 pilots referenced in the Chairman's Letter.
I think most pilots would agree that the 4 brought this scruitiny on themselves when they were unable to cover a rotation assigned to them while they were on SC. While that was the triggering event for their audit, as I understand it from the Chairman's Letter, these were not "one off" events.

The real issue is whether the company's SC audit is/was able to establish a pattern of prior conduct (with any degree of reasonable certainty) that justifies the termination of those 4. Once the company presents its evidence, it then becomes incumbent on the pilot and his/her DALPA rep to undercut the strength of that evidence (which is not employing an affirmative defense). What we don't know here on this web board is how strong was the company's evidence establishing a pattern of conduct from the audit? Did the pilot(s) at issue have SC from, say, 08:00-20:00 yet KCM shows them entering another terminal at 14:15 and CASS shows them having activated a jumpseat listing out of their SC domicile on the 15:00 flight to their home of record and at 19:15 there is a Facebook post of them at their kid's baseball game several states away?
Going more to your point (I believe), the harder issue for the company is establishing the pilots were not in position for a SC period in which they weren't used. However, because those 4 were terminated and not merely disciplined, I suspect that any "retroactive digital footprint" presented to them was probably pretty clear and convincing. Further, we don't know what kind of admissions any of them made in their statements to the company.

As Chairman Bartells said in his letter, there is no question these pilots are entitled to ALPA representation but if your client is blatantly guilty and has demonstrated a pattern of guilty conduct in the past, the ALPA representative may have his/her hands tied by the facts and circumstances and, at that point, the rep is merely there to ensure the pilot's right to due process is satisfied and fighting for the least amount of discipline possible. As "they" say, when the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law is against you, argue the facts. When both the facts and the law are against you, fight like hell for the best plea bargain you can get. 😁

 

Wow. I guess that esq in your screen name is for reals!

 

Frequent Holiday Inn Express stays. 😁