Well, you've said much more than that over the last few pages. Now you've decided to start with the insults and name calling.

"Holier than thou"? Wow. I'd love to see what I've said here that you think rises to that level? You sure are quick to attribute "attitudes" to me when from my perspective I've been very respectful. I feel strongly about my opinion and used CBA language and logic to support it and now you've decided I'm arguing with you. I'd call it an impasse. So be it. I'll be sure to get back with you if I encounter a situation that resolves this one way or the other.

Nope. Never been on the NC, but I saw that one coming a mile away which is one of the many reasons I voted "No".

I’ve got two thoughts.
1. That 21 page deviation guide is like the Rosetta Stone for the deviation part of our contract. Whoever wrote it should be next in line to Fred Smith. And no, I didn’t write it.
2. Based on actual experience, Adlerdriver provides more clarity on our contract than either FDX or ALPA. I’d bet against the Patriots before I’d bet against him. And no, I’m not Adlerdriver. But if he and Walrus combined their talents, we could condense our 2015 contract to a two or three pager we could all understand.

Reading Comprehension for idiots.

You Don't get to Join the Scheduled Leg regardless of however many boxes you check when you notify the Company you are deviating.

It's an entirely New Reservation.
If your Scheduled DH is MEM-DFW-LAX, clicking Any of the Boxes cancels your Scheduled reservation...so thinking you can go ATL-DFW and then Join the DFW-LAX leg won't work.

Depending upon how the boxes are checked, your Scheduled GT in LAX may, or may not be canceled.

As Adlerdriver has attempted to point out, numerous times, once you arrive in DFW you can accomplish your Final Check-in and you are then protected if something goes awry with the DFW-LAX leg.

Again, as Adlerdriver has attempted to point out, CRS is more than happy to shuffle the solution off to Us since we've Deviated on the 1st leg. And, if you're ignorant of the CBA, they get away with it.

It's not rocking boats, it's not jeopardizing anything, it's complying with our Contractual requirements.

Bingo.

-UA

You say this, but then say you agree with Alder. Maybe you should title this writing by idiots.

When you check both boxes, you are saying that you are deviating both legs. When you check the box for the first leg, you are saying that you are only deviating on that leg and intend to take the scheduled second leg. Before this contract, there was only one box to check. If it doesn't matter how many boxes you check, why did they add a second box?

I'll say again, Alder may be right. And I'll say again, why not just check the appropriate boxes. I've called CRS when connecting to the second leg and things went bad. I've never been told I was deviating, maybe because I only check the box that says I am deviating on the first leg.

Dude, you keep missing the entire point of the discussion. None of this has anything to do with the boxes. If they are checked or not checked. It does not matter. If you are deviating, however you checked the boxes, and you are standing in the departure gate for the scheduled DH, if you can get a ticket on that flight, then you can call scheduling and do final check-in. Once you do that you are no longer deviating. You have all the protection in place just like if you did not deviate. If you cannot get a ticket on that flight, then you are still deviating as you cannot join the scheduled DH.

Scheduling does not want to fix the problem if the scheduled DH changes, so they are telling the young guys they are on their own. Nothing new here, Scheduling has been trying to get us to solve offline transportation cancels, changes, WX, MX, etc for years. If something changes on your scheduled DH, you just call Scheduling, let them know and then go get lunch while you wait for them to fix it.

I understand the point you are trying to make and as I have said, you may be right. However, there is also language in the contract that says that once you deviate, you are on your own.

My point is, and maybe I'm not doing a good job explaining, there are two boxes on a two leg deadhead so that you can choose to deviate on one, or both legs. My devils advocate position is if you deviate on both legs and then later get a ticket for the second scheduled leg and that leg gets cancelled for wx, maintenance, or any other reason and you miss the trip, don't expect the company to take your side.

According to Alders position and backed by a few others, I could have a trip that DH's from MEM to ATL to start revenue flying in ATL. I could deviate on the one and only leg of my DH and then later decide that I want to take the scheduled flight and all I have to do is show up to the gate in MEM and check in and I am protected. That position also states that the company is now responsible for getting me new tickets and rescheduling my pairing if anything happens to the MEM to ATL flight. I don't think that CRS and the company would agree.

Instead of telling people it doesn't matter which boxes you check and to just show up, maybe we should tell people to check the appropriate boxes and only deviate on the legs you really want to.

Here is the section that has been quoted;

iv. Final deviation check-in may be accomplished if the deviating pilot joins the Company scheduled deadhead(s) and, as a result, he will arrive at the point of origin of the pilot’s first revenue flight or standby period as if the pilot had not deviated. Upon arrival at the departure gate of the scheduled deadhead flight, the pilot shall check-in with VIPS, or CRS if VIPS is not accessible, and indicate that he is in position for the scheduled deadhead flight. Once this check-in has been accomplished, the pilot shall no longer be considered as deviating, for the purposes of subsequent delays, revisions, and all trip services.

Alder keeps highlighting the "or CRS" to make his point, but the sentence goes further and states "if VIPS is not accessible." It doesn't say if you decided not to deviate as you indicated to CRS earlier. That language also says "joins the Company scheduled deadhead(s)." If you deviate on all segments of the DH, you have told the company that you aren't joining their scheduled DH.

For the multiple time I will state again that Alder and others may be right. But they have also stated that is not how CRS is interpreting it and CRS is trying to place it on the pilots. IMO, it is only a matter of time until someone gets bit by this and has to attempt a grievance simply because they told the company through VIPS, as required in the contract, that they were going to deviate on both legs when in fact, they only wanted to deviate on the first leg.

I know we are all desperate for more time at home but there is an easy fix to this whole DH/Deviation problem. If everyone just took a month or two and did all DH as built and published we should get what we need.

Pin,
To start off, it’s A-d-l-e-r. What say we work on the small stuff we might be able to agree on first. ;)

I just wanted to point out that I think you’re giving CRS far more credit than they deserve. IMO, they’re not “interpreting” anything. They’re just doing what they’ve always done, which is look for a “$” somewhere on their CRS display and when they see it, say “no soup for you”. I think it’s highly unlikely that VIPS display they look at changed one iota with the implementation of this new Final Check-in option. As a result, I think it’s far more likely that any actions they take contrary to this new CBA language are being done out of ignorance and habit, not any active interpretation. If and when it comes up, we need to be firm and un-yielding and enforce the NEW language.

No, that’s not what I keep highlighting. I did once to make a different point. The NEW language I keep using that you seem to be able to ignore because it doesn’t line up with the way we(you) used to have to deviate and trumps an old restriction in a different CBA paragraph is this one:
“Once this check-in has been accomplished, the pilot shall no longer be considered as deviating, for the purposes of subsequent delays, revisions, and all trip services.”

I was “considered as deviating” for a while...maybe 60 hours or so....but I am “no longer”. Peace. :cool:

P.S. Ask yourself this: How can anyone no longer be considered doing something they were never doing in the first place?

OK Adler, ;)

To answer your P.S., when you deviated on the first leg, and not on the second leg, you are considered deviating until you get into position to join the second leg. If something happens on the first leg that makes it impossible for you to join the scheduled leg, you are still deviating until you get into your final position.

Now, tell me what you think would happen in my single leg DH MEM to ATL scenario. Do you think if after deviating on the one and only leg, I could show up to the gate in MEM, check in and expect CRS and the duty officer to rewrite my pairing if the scheduled DH that I deviated on got cancelled? Or, do you think that they would say, "You deviated, so you are on your own." What if I wasn't able to be in position on time, would I still be pay protected?

P.S.

The language in the CBA that you say this language trumps specifies when that language no longer applies. If this new language indeed trumps that language, why didn't they add that paragraph reference to the exemption as well? Wouldn't that have been easy?

Again, I'm simply pointing out that there is language that requires you to tell the company exactly how you are going to deviate and language that says once you do, you are on your own. In VIPS, when deviating, it asks you which leg(s) you want to deviate on. If you select both, there is language that says you are now on your own. So, IMO, its not as simple as you imply. Again, I hope you are correct, but I'm not going to tell anyone that it doesn't matter which boxes you check.

Peace to you as well, we are on the same team!

You guys are making this way too difficult. It’s very simple. When you deviate in VIPS, if you have multiple legs and click to deviate on both legs, that’s it. You are deviated for both legs. You can’t undo this. This will cancel the company provided “Scheduled” DH ticket. Even if you buy a ticket for a seat on the same flight that your pairing shows, you are still technically deviating. Just because you have chosen to take the same flight that shows on your pairing, doesn’t make it a “scheduled” DH. You gave up the scheduled DH when you clicked deviate in VIPS.
Now, if you only click to deviate on the first leg of the above scenario, and keep a company provided ticket for the second leg, you can then do your final check in and no longer be deviating. If you are doing your final check in when you have deviated on both legs, assuming you are more than 100 miles away, that would be improper, as you are still technically deviating to your assignment.

Edit for spelling error

You should be treated like anyone who didn't deviate, probably with the exception of GT. Expecting that to be turned back on short notice in every situation is unrealistic (though I have has some success). Regardless of past practice, deadlines or checked boxes, what logical reason can you offer that would justify crew control leaving a pilot to fend for himself or worse, losing trip pay, when he's where his published schedule dictates? That unjustifiable policy was why this change was finally made. The old all or nothing practice covered a large percentage of the situations and was an acceptable trade for the option to deviate. 60 hours notice is more about making sure airlines don't charge us cancellation fees and making sure GT is cancelled in a timely manner - not some indelible notification the company requires to stay informed. When was the last time you asked CRS to deviate inside 60 hours and they said "no"? It's in their interest to allow any and all deviations because most pilots aren't going to join a segment of the scheduled DH (i.e. less work for them). Old system or new, it isn't logical to expect the company to step in and save the day for a pilot who opts to use a different route, different airline maybe even on a different day. But, that brute force solution under the old system left some pilots on scheduled DH legs unfairly restricted from CRS support. Unfair and illogical and we fixed it.

Of course, I can't predict what would happen in your scenario. It's possible this has never happened yet. Because of that and past practice, it's entirely possible the first response might be just what you suggest.
But the intent of this change to the contract was to alleviate the possibility that a pilot might deviate, end up on the scheduled DH and still be responsible for disruptions. I agree this particular scenario you offer is unique in light of past deviation practices and it might not have been considered when the language was agreed on, but it clearly meets the spirit and intent of the change. If it takes a grievance to codify that interpretation, then I say bring it on. Taking a pilot's pay over a technicality, (that's IMO unsupported by the CBA) because he made a good deviation "plan A" and his fallback option puts him exactly where his schedule says he should be makes no sense.

"keep a company provided ticket for the second leg"? You can't cancel part of a multi-leg airline ticket. It's all or nothing.

Checking only one box cancels the whole ticket too. One box checked, two boxes checked, or more, your "company provided ticket" for the leg(s) you want to actually travel on is going to need to be re-purchased.

Yes, I will concede that you are correct depending on how it’s booked. If it’s a same day, same airline, connecting flight, yes. If it has a layover in between it could be booked separately. But if you don’t deviate on the second leg, initiating a purchase of the ticket for the second leg is a ticket for the scheduled DH.

What I’m trying to say is, if you clicked the deviate for the second leg, it doesn’t matter that you have a ticket for the flight that matches your pairing, regardless of how you obtained said ticket. You have still deviated for that leg, and you can’t be undeviated. There are no protections for that.

Well, welcome to the discussion. Your points have been well covered over the last 3-4 pages. Perhaps you could take a look and see if anything shifts your perspective.

I’ve read the posts, just don’t agree with the assessment, that you are on a scheduled portion of the DH after one has clearly clicked the deviate button on the second leg. Doesn’t matter that you have a ticket or made the flight. You are still technically deviating.

Noted........

I completely agree with FDXpilot. I believe the intent of the policy is that you deviate on the first leg, and not the second. When the window pops up telling you that both segment will be cancelled and you must rebook the second segment, you click the continue button and the origin to destination ticket you want that includes the original second segment. That is what you told the company you would do.

The real way to settle this would be to contact contract enforcement and ask them how this works. After you get the explanation, ask them to publish it in Positive Rate to explain it to all of us. If you can indeed deviate on all of your legs and then later change your mind and rebook on a scheduled segment and be protected, that is something we should all know. If they aren't willing to publish that, then they aren't sure that is the intent.

I realize we're pretty much done with this lufberry.

I guess my bottom line is this: I'm going to exploit every aspect of this contract to our collective advantage to the maximum extent possible. Why would anyone do anything less? It's what the company does.

If circumstances conspire to put me in a position where my best option is to join a scheduled DH leg that I previously didn't plan on using (and checked the box), I'm going to do it and perform my final check-in because the contract says I can. In fact, I've already done that on several occasions. If subsequent to that, I encounter difficulties with my DH, I'm going to expect assistance from crew control because I'm on the scheduled DH and the contract also says that's supposed to happen. It can't be denied the words are there. If one of our pilots want to interpret them in a way that benefits crew control or the company that's their prerogative. Until they hit a brick wall in the form of a legal ruling, why anyone would do that is beyond me. I'm going to interpret that language in a way that benefits me and anyone else on our seniority list.
Fortunately, IMO, that interpretation also follows logic and the intent of the CBA change, not a technicality.
After that, if they leave me hanging, I'll go to plan C and keep working the problem until I run out of options. If I miss the trip, it's not going to be because I tried to use the scheduled DH - it was just my day in the barrel. But, at least I'll have tried and as a result I'll have plenty of ammo for the grievance.

There's no valid reason why two pilots on the same trip, same scheduled DH leg should be treated differently because one has a "$" next to their name. It's not more expensive, it's not more difficult and it's the exact way the company planned on getting that pilot into position in the first place. That's the whole reason this change was made to the CBA. A technicality is not acceptable in my opinion.

I agree Adler, this horse is dead. I also agree that you can interpret the language so that it benefits you. As far as not seeing why someone would take a different approach, I can't explain it any better than I have already attempted. Just like there is nothing in the contract that prevents someone from jumpseating into a long international leg 4 hours prior. Yet, the company has removed pilots from trips for doing exactly that. For that reason, I'm not going to tell someone to do something because that is the most advantageous way for us to interpret the contract. I will point out any "potential" risk. Again, contract enforcement could probably clear this up, but don't ask a question you really don't want answered. For me, if I ever get in the situation where I deviated on both legs and now find myself needing to take the segment I already deviated on, I will contact contract enforcement to see what they say. Sometimes it is better to get permission before forgiveness.

Congrats all on making the simple complex. Ya’ll oughtta work on our next contract.

OMG-
pinseeker. Adler has, repeatedly, quoted the NEW verbiage regarding Final Deviation Check-in options under CBA2015.

I don't need to "get permission" to buy a Deviation ticket that has a Pairing's leg on it to accomplish this Final Check in.
There is no "forgiveness" to request.

Once I've accomplished my final check-in, whether it's as part of a multi-leg DH to get to my trip, or your hypothetical I changed my mind MEM-ATL DH...any Flight Cancellations, reroutes, etc...are on the company and up to the company to decide how they want to fix.

It's up to US to know and Defend the CBA. I have no doubt CRS will make blanket assumptions as to their responsibilities and think every Deviant Travel is solely on their own. But that Onus has Changed once you make the Final Check-in.
IF you never make it to your connecting flight, then you won't have made the Final Check-in and everything is still on you.

TOTALLY different situations.

To paraphrase.
Everything in "Contracts" is simple, but the simplest thing is difficult.

Now on to NOCAT discussions.

I once pointed out to a Capt we were on a NOCAT pairing and reminded him to expense it. His response was that he hadn't actually spent any $$. My response was that it didn't matter and it was a compensation for the situation versus an actual meal. And that even if he had simply spent 15$ he would still be entitled to the full 25.

His response was that people get fired for doing that.

Couple of months later, printed out my expense report with the $25 NOCAT claim and pointed out that I still seemed to be gainfully employed.


(Please GOD, no SUB discussions)

OMG Kronan,

I have quoted the language that says once you deviate on a scheduled leg, you are now on your own. The language doesn't say anything about changing your mind. I even pointed out that the language about being on your own has an exception paragraph listed, and it isn't the one you are referring to.

This isn't surprising from you though. You repeatedly defend your yes vote for this contract and state how good it is. You are also a big proponent of the VB plan. So I'll take your $.02 and depreciate it for how much I value it.

Looking forward to your "YES" vote on contract 202?.

Edit:

OBTW, sorry you took my permission over forgiveness comment so literally. I figured everyone knew that CE doesn't give permission, only interpretations of contract language. I don't even need their permission to file a grievance.

Denied seat selection fee on company bought personal ticket.

Any one else thirsty for a new topic?

Had travel bank in Dec 2018. Finished a revenue trip EWR-MEM midnight Christmas Eve. Used travel bank to buy a ticket home Christmas morning. Bought upgrade to economy plus.

Initially denied seat selection reimbursement with reason “seat selection fees only allowed on commercial deadheads”.

Filed insite. Magically reimbursed.

This denial happened with many. Watch it doesn’t happen to you.

Good to be on the lookout for.
If someone said “company bought personal ticket” to me, I would think they were talking about a ticket for total personal use that they purchased through the company for travel outside of 3-days from a trip (which I don’t think is allowed).
The ticket you purchased in Dec to get home from MEM is still considered a deviation ticket and is no different than any other deviation ticket.

:confused:No idea what a “commercial deadhead” is unless they’re trying to imply “scheduled commercial deadhead”. Because our deviation flights are still considered a deadhead and they’re “commercial” too.

Regardless, there is no such restriction on seat selection fees. In fact, the only reference to seat selection fees in the entire contract is in section 8, Deviation Options and Qualifying Expenses. If it’s listed under allowable deviation expenses, then it’s certainly not restricted as they attempted to do.

I was trying to find a title that everyone could cue on/understand.

Yes, it was a personal ticket home, using the 3 day rule.

The rest, you’re preaching to the choir. The “seat selection fees are only allowed on company deadheads” is still in red on my expense report, but haven’t got an explanation as to what the f that means.

I read it as they’re saying they’re only allowed on a company scheduled deadhead too, but I argued via insite if that’s their interpretation, nowhere in the CBA is that defined or justified.

Instead, in fact, my purchase of a flight home IS specifically allowed (as we all know), and the $40/$80 rule is IN THE SAME SECTION.

Ridiculous.

True irony? I should’ve asked for the whole fee ($53.84), as technically it was a backend positioning sequence, and the seat selection fee allowance is one of FEW that has the GREATER of the amount reimbursable.

Gungala gungala gungala...

Why didn't you? Create precedent and give them wiggle room and it becomes more difficult to enforce, IMO.

I did (point out it’s the greater of the two, and asked for $53.84) via my insite.

In their response, they stated in all CAPS: YOU WERE AUTHORIZED THE SEAT SELECTION FEE OF $40.

Since that’s what I initially asked for (the $40-my mistake), I let it go this time. Next time, I’ll be asking for the full amount.

I shared the screw up on this expense. It won’t happen again.

What is a personal ticket home using the 3 day rule? Were you deviating if so it was a company DH. Done it several times. We can win this fight. Next you going to tell that if my 73 crashes the insurance don’t pay because I was deviating?

I tried this and was denied. They said that it’s a maximum of $40 per leg and $80 total. Not the way it seems to read to me in the contract but CE agreed.

There's a surprise. :rolleyes: "the greater of" is tough concept. We might as well try to define the word "is". :D

I'll throw spears when warranted, but I've had some very positive experiences with CE over the last few years. Rose has been very effective and diligent helping me with some CBA section 8 related issues and a grievance.

Utter BS in my opinion. CE rolls over on way too much.

Couldn’t be more clear.

CBA 2015 Lessons learned
 

Preaching to the choir.

I was trying to title the post best I could so people would understand. Guess I failed.

Yes, it’s a company/commercial deadhead within 3 days of a trip. As I said, no-one has answered me what the hell the (in red) line of “seat selection fees are only allowed on commercial deadheads” meant on my expense report.

Ok, I"ll answer. In addition to calling a deviation ticket a "personal ticket home using the 3-day rule", it would appear you are unable to use the expense report system properly. :D

I did some experimenting with my expense report and got the same message in red that you saw. It happens when you try to associate a seat selection fee with a revenue leg instead of a deadhead leg using the pull-down selections on each expense. The system doesn't stop you from inputting that error into your report, but it does catch it when you view your report. I got the red message to display in my un-submitted report after selecting the wrong type of flight and entering that expense into my report.
So, no one denied you anything except you. Don't submit your expense report with red errors showing. The system was trying to save you from yourself. :D

No. This happened to me as well. This red message isn’t there when submitting the report. If it had, I doubt it would let you submit it as it doesn’t let you submit for any other red messages. The message is there after you’ve been denied the expense after you’ve submitted it. It confused me as well since it was associated with a dead head flight I purchased with bank money for a flight home after training. After an insite, the message went away and got the explanation that it’s $40 per leg and $80 total for seat selection fees. So a portion of the fee was being denied.

Maybe you shouldn’t be so rude when talking with people.:)

Lighten up. A little sarcasm never hurt anyone. I’m sure BK can handle it. :D

To your point. It does show up in the report before you submit it because I just did it and checked before I responded to BlackKnight. My Feb report is not yet submitted. I associated a seat selection fee with a revenue flight and clicked “submit”, entering that expense into my Feb report.
When I then click “review/submit” in the list of reports to look at Feb and scroll to that expense I incorrectly entered, it has the exact red message that BlackKnight said he had in his report. That message is there prior to submitting the report. I click “remove” on the expense, correct and re-submit it into my report. The message goes away.
The message also shows up if I associate the fee with the last revenue leg of a trip into MEM (like one would do with a ticket purchased to get home).
The only thing I can’t verify is what would happen if I submitted the report that way, because I can’t undo that.
My guess is the system does let you submit it that way because that message is showing any time the seat selection fee is associated with any portion of a trip that’s not specifically a deadhead. Why would it come up for me before I submit and no one else?
Regardless, it’s a system glitch that should be fixed because obviously not all legit seat selection fees can be associated with an actual deadhead leg. Some pilots may not even have a deadhead on their trip at all and still could submit a valid SS fee for their flight home.
Another FYI - it appears that the system auto-denies the fee if it’s associated with a segment of the trip that is outside of 3 days from the date of the seat selection fee, even if that trip segment is a deadhead. In that case, it automatically changes the expense to unauthorized before you even submit it into your report. It still lets you enter it into the report and once it’s there, there is no red message. It just shows up in a specific “unauthorized” section at the bottom of the report.

Has it occurred to you that maybe you haven’t found all the glitches in these example? But you rather use your sarcasm instead because you know everything. And to your other point, I SPECIFICALLY used a :) to indicate my sarcasm figuring you could also handle it.:)

Not everything. I learned quite a bit from this exchange.
My takeaway is if I have a SS fee from a deadhead ticket to go home at the end of a trip (or to MEM to start a trip), I have two choices (that we know of, since I may not have found all the glitches ;))
1. Find a DH leg on my trip within 3 days of my SS fee and associate it with that.
2. If no DH leg like that available, then pick the first or last trip segment, accept there’s going to be the red warning message (most likely) and put an appropriate comment in my travel report. Hopefully it gets fixed by the auditor after submitting the report and doesn’t require an Insite.

Cheers :)

OMG, Pinseeker

Perhaps you should be renamed.

Again, Quoting from the book of CBA 8.C.1.d.iv
Final deviation check-in may be accomplished if the deviating
pilot joins the Company scheduled deadhead(s) and, as a
result, he will arrive at the point of origin of the pilot’s first revenue
flight or standby period as if the pilot had not deviated.
Upon arrival at the departure gate of the scheduled deadhead
flight, the pilot shall check-in with VIPS, or CRS if VIPS is not
accessible, and indicate that he is in position for the scheduled
deadhead flight. Once this check-in has been accomplished,
the pilot shall no longer be considered as deviating,
for the purposes of subsequent delays, revisions, and all trip
services.
Example: The scheduled deadhead travel is MEM-ATL-CDG.
The pilot deviates and obtains a ticket to join the scheduled
ATL-CDG flight. Final deviation check-in may be accomplished
upon arrival at the departure gate for the CDG flight in
the ATL airport.


Yes, I voted Yes for TA2015. Yes, there ARE improvements in CBA2015. And, this one you just can't seem to acknowledge is One of them.

Can't see any other reason to attempt to Confuse the Issue.

YES, if by Proponent of the VB plan you mean.
Same Earnings Cap Traditional A plan is superior to the A plan (Something I've said many, many times)
VB Plan results are Better than our current A plan. (Where it's not, is for people who only work 70% of their Lines and Plan to work 100% at the END of their Career to get their Average Earnings Up....See Traditional Better than the year by year)

Whether I vote Yes on TA 202X is still TBD.
As I said back in 2015, the main reason I voted for TA 2015 is that I was involved in more than One discussion with people who were of the opinion that ALL Newhires should simply get a Big B plan while OUR A plan is fixed. That we have NO obligation to any future newhires.

(Another thing I have said Repeatedly is that Even our "Frozen" A plan is superior to a Big B plan)