FDX B reserve

Reply Subscribe

Page 3 of 4

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

12-11-2017, 11:03 AM

#21

cliffnd

Line Holder

Joined APC: Mar 2015

Posts: 98

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyC

26.J.2.e.

The provisions of Section 26.J.2. are predicated upon the premise that time spent on a pilot scheduled Company jumpseat is not accrued duty time under this contract or the FARs. Should the Company be required to consider time spent on a pilot scheduled Company jumpseat as accrued duty time, Section 26.J.2. shall become null and void immediately.

We were typing at the same time! Thanks Tony.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

12-11-2017, 11:04 AM

#22

TonyC

Organizational Learning 

Joined APC: Nov 2005

Position: Directly behind the combiner

Posts: 4,948

Quote:

Originally Posted by cliffnd

If I understand you correctly, the loophole around this section we’ve both referenced is to select business over staging (which everyone does anyway for the higher priority).

That's not the loophole. There is no loophole.

You either follow the rule and enjoy the protection of "No Harm, No Foul", or you don't follow the rule and assume the risks of not being present at showtime to check in.

.

12-11-2017, 11:11 AM

#23

pinseeker

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Aug 2006

Posts: 1,820

Quote:

Originally Posted by cliffnd

How am I wrong? I just paraphrased those two paragraphs.

In your paraphrase, you said that to jumpseat on company equipment you must meet the parameters mentioned in that section. That is not correct. You can jumpseat on company equipment regardless of whether you meet those conditions or not. If you don't meet those conditions, however, you aren't protected under no harm no foul. Tony answered the null and void question.

12-11-2017, 11:11 AM

#24

cliffnd

Line Holder

Joined APC: Mar 2015

Posts: 98

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyC

Totally agree with you. Pinseeker gave ME the impression of a loophole based on jumpseat category selected, but after reading your responses, it makes sense that this section is strictly about “no harm no foul” protection and what you need to do to have it. Outside of that, no rules/requirements to comply with this section.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

12-11-2017, 11:13 AM

#25

cliffnd

Line Holder

Joined APC: Mar 2015

Posts: 98

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyC

Yes. Tony did a good job explaining.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

12-11-2017, 01:49 PM

#26

HIFLYR

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Sep 2007

Position: 777 Captain in Training

Posts: 1,457

Contract enforcement stated to me for no harm no foul to be in place you have to be first staging not business listed. To be staging you have to declare place of residence. No protection in any form staging or not into a rsv period, i.e. has to into a trip.

12-11-2017, 02:14 PM

#27

TonyC

Organizational Learning 

Joined APC: Nov 2005

Position: Directly behind the combiner

Posts: 4,948

Quote:

Originally Posted by HIFLYR

That's precisely what the CBA language says.

As we all know, previous Chief Pilots have chosen to interpret the language more liberally, in effect choosing to provide to pilots using Business status the same protection from discipline provided by the CBA to pilots using Staging status. I have never heard an explanation of why this interpretation was used. It might have been generosity, or it might have been a lack of understanding of the CBA. Regardless, we enjoyed a bit of a break for the tenure of that particular Chief Pilot.

As we also know, the whims of previous Chief Pilots are not binding on a current Chief Pilot, and any Chief Pilot has the right to change his mind and resort to the precise language of the CBA at any time.

More uncertainty, more gambling.

.

12-11-2017, 02:48 PM

#28

Adlerdriver

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Jul 2007

Position: 767 Captain

Posts: 3,988

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyC

That's precisely what the CBA language says..

I think the wording of this particular section of the contract is being given far too much significance.

It was written when there was a much wider variety of employees and travel status on any given jump seat. Pilots "staged" out of their home airport because that was the guidance on JS status we were given and told to use by JS admin. It seems a fair assumption that the author simply used the same common terminology, not intending that the commuter protections would be contingent on such minutiae.

What sensible rationale could be used to deny a commuter who meets all the criteria the protections offered simply based on the JS status he booked?

12-11-2017, 03:04 PM

#29

TonyC

Organizational Learning 

Joined APC: Nov 2005

Position: Directly behind the combiner

Posts: 4,948

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adlerdriver

What sensible rationale could be used to deny a commuter who meets all the criteria the protections offered simply based on the JS status he booked?

The first test in an arbitration is plain language, not sensible rationale.

What sensible rationale was used to terminate pilots in Hong Kong who had established their residency as required by the CBA and LOA?

.

12-11-2017, 03:24 PM

#30

Adlerdriver

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Jul 2007

Position: 767 Captain

Posts: 3,988

I understand the correlation you're making but HKG housing issues are a bit beyond a simply discussion of JS booking status.

If my JS flight to MEM diverts and I miss my trip, what difference is my travel status going to make to the company? Regardless of whether I checked staging or business when I booked it, I'm still going to miss the trip. So, whatever DO happens to be on duty that night gets to "discipline" me based on a technicality? To what end? I'm already out the trip pay - I really don't care what letter ends up in my secret flight ops file.