FDXpilot

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

Adlerdriver

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.

Adlerdriver

"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.

FDXpilot

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.

Adlerdriver

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.

FDXpilot

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.

Adlerdriver

Noted........

pinseeker

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.

Adlerdriver

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.

pinseeker

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.