They had major weather issues in LGA and JFK on Friday also. On top of that JFK for reasons unknown was trying to operate with 2 runways. There were a large number of 3 hour rule gate returns and crews trapped in base Friday night.

Was having a hotel van discussion last night with a very experienced pilot who had been rerouted and refused to sign an extension. He relayed how he and his captain were forced to repeatedly explain their reasoning to higher and higher levels of authority before they were finally released to go to the hotel. He also mentioned how using the word "fatigue" would put you into an older pre-117 section of the contract where you would not necessarily be pay protected vs. "unfit to fly" which for lack of a better term, is the politically correct way to say the exact same thing but still be pay protected. I searched the contract for verification but could not find anything definitive and was hoping I could get some inputs here.

1. It sounds like pilots who don't sign an extension end up getting pressure from all directions and inferred threats of disciplinary action if they don't sign (the van story is only the most recent of several similar situations I've heard). Is there anything behind these veiled threats or are they bluffing and hoping you'll cave? Obviously you shouldn't sign a release if you don't feel you can safely fly regardless of administrative follow-up issues, but if pilot-pushing is common then it illustrates an underlying safety issue that needs to be stamped out.

2. Is there some specific contractual definition of the word "fatigue" which should make pilots use other verbiage when explaining why they're not signing an extension?

This is total BS that the extension has become assumed and we have to argue why we can't, under pressure no less.
Had one in LHR last week. Sent the dispatcher an ACARS message after we went over the flight plan LATT (no ext) that we would not extend. He came up with a LATT that was somewhere between our 2 LATTs and while we were trying to sort that out, ACS took the pax off the aircraft, so it became moot.

I was on my way to Lowes yesterday when my wife called and said I needed to turn around and get coffee for her. Am I entitled to re-route compensation?

If I didn't know better I would think I was reading this in the "regional" forum. This stuff is an everyday occurrence at our level, for about 1/4 the pay. Not a criticism, just an observation.

Delta is not following 117 regs correctly. It should be a pilot can extend 2 hours, not that he has too/or is expected to extend 2 hours. I have heard from good sources this has been discussed with the FAA, and I predict a correction will be added to the FOM in a few months.

I agree with you. They expect us to be able to fly to FAA max everytime we show up for work. As far as they are concerned, not extending is the same thing as a fatigue call. If you refuse to extend, you have to call crew tracking who will transfer to a duty pilot if you hold your ground. Duty pilot will then question you and make you feel bad. If you still refuse extension, he will then put you on 10 hours rest and turn you back over to crew tracking. A real chied pilot will then follow up a few days later and make you explain yourself again. He will tell you that you probably won't get paid. That way you think about it before doing it again next time the situation comes up. You may or may not get paid. It's not an easy process and if you do it, they make you feel like you are going against the norm.

On a three day now. 5 reroutes so far. Non a single leg on the original rotation. 1st leg cnx due to EWR fire. After that its been a constant cluster. We are imploding....

ATL717B

"4F1" is the contractual section that the company applied to your rotation to determine your pay (4= the Min Pay and Credit Guarantee section, F = Rotation Guarantee. You were actually under 4.F.1.b.2), with the "R" being a code for the reroute.

I agree. But I don't think a single pilot has not been paid for refusing an extension. All intimidation.