I'm confused here. What part of the 2006 contract allowed expensing a domestic hotel unless it was while deviating or on a back to back deadhead trip. I've never heard of it, never used it and can't find it anywhere in the 2006/2011 contract. It seems pretty clear - did a few auditors overlook it before? Maybe, but how exactly is this a grab from the contract?

IMO, any sudden deviation from past practice is a grab. You are correct in your reading of the CBA, but the fact remains that year over year pilots were allowed to expense a hotel prior to or after a trip as long as that expense fell within three days of the trip.

There's nothing in the contract that lays out the rules we follow regarding the sliding of travel expenses. Does that mean the company has the ability to simply deny that next month? One would hope that the historical precedent that's been established over many years of mutual agreement would work in our favor in that hypothetical scenario or in the actual situation regarding hotel use.

I guess I just don't see how one could possibly interpret the CBA another way. It's one thing to say, well that section was not quite clear and they always allowed it a certain way. In this case, the CBA was quite clear. Like I said I've been here about as long as you have (2005), and never heard of anyone using that provision so while u may know of those that did, I don't believe it was overwhelmingly done.

If the company reinterprets something then I'd say, that's a grab. But with no leg to stand on ever?

It was more widely done than the amount of posts here indicate. I know of quite a few who did it. Many old time commuters did it. Frequently people would leave ANC on arrival to SEA and get a room at SEA airport for the layover. People would DH to SEA because it made for many more options to get home, and about a half day earlier many times. People used the provisions of 24 hour delay enroute domestically and 48 hours on international deviations to pay for the hotel. One could charge transportation too. How else would one use these delay provisions which are in the CBA? ...sleep on the floor in the airport? I myself and other people I know had hotels and transportation paid for from deviation bank for many years. I also have FOX expense reports with these items paid without question. Past practice was established and it is a change even if some people had never done it before. Many provisions of the CBA are implemented through practice even if they are not explicitly phrased in the CBA. Historical practice DOES establish contractual rights. Past precident works both ways. For example, a court would frown upon no one picking up open time just as a court would frown on any company changes to past practice. Even with a "new" CBA if these words weren't changed or renegotiated and nothing impacts these delay provisions in the negotiating notes, past practice should hold. I think it's very much worth passing on to the grievance folks even if they aren't currently aware. Just recently the MEC chairman's video asked for information because they can't act without data. I would be surprised and disappointed (once grievance receives data on FOX reports being paid) that they would not proceed forward. Remember death by a thousand cuts is what this amounts to. Affect only 50-100 people with each of these changes and the CBA continues to evolve--always in favor of the company!

I did it a lot in the past also - never had an issue getting it covered provided bank was available. And literally everyone I know well enough to discuss this stuff in person with did it as well. So, Tuck, you can add that to your data points, which seem a bit myopic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doubtful - we've lost that battle before. For instance, Company for a time used to give 3 CH FAR extension pay to guys on long intl deadheads. Then one day they stopped because they said that was not clear intent of written language - and in fact, it's not. I would agree with you that precedent is critical with nebulous language - say like 4a2b - there was no precedent sent, ALPA had a view but ultimately the language was (garbled) but in the company's direction. The language will always override even when there is a precedent. One could always say a specific auditor or other made a mistake. Now if you've got say comms from SCPs etc saying it's allowed that would then change the language but precedent does not change language. You'll have to give me an example of where this has successfully happened. Status quo actions during negotiations (your open time pick up example) is not language. Look I don't like it but it's pretty hard to say, yeah regardless of the clear rules, I broke them a lot, was allowed to break them so therefore I should still be allowed to break them even though we agreed to the rules as written.

Here's some written language straight from the contract. It's about interpretation, application and previous acceptance of the language available. This isn't about some rogue auditor or being allowed to "break the rules".

Travel claimed as a deviation expense must begin or end within 3 days of the scheduled assignment to/from which the pilot is deviating (e g , scheduled deadhead, trip or R-day) and must proceed to the intended destination of the deviation with no greater than a 24 hour delay enroute, domestically, and a 48 hour delay en route internationally

Where do we delay for 24 hours without a hotel? Just because you can find other contract language that puts the past practice in question, there is language to support it. That, plus established precedent is enough, IMO.

Well you can file a grievance. Have to have something to grieve like a denied hotel expense.

I can't since I haven't been denied a hotel in a situation where it's been previously approved. The folks who have been denied need to get the union to solicit data from those of us who have it and they need to follow through with a grievance.

What we don't need is for the CE people at ALPA to just throw their hands up, say "oh well" and give the company their standard pass.