Memphis road show 9-10
09-11-2015, 03:11 AM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2005
Posts: 1,273
Originally Posted by TonyC
The thing is, the TA language tells a different story, especially if you read it with an eye to what The Company can do to exploit the language and how they can use it to use us. Here's the actual TA language.
8. DeadheadingNow, what that means is that any time you rate a higher class of service, The Company can satisfy that requirement with a "Flat Bed Seat".
8. Deadheading
A. Deadheading by Air
5. Class of Service for Commercial Deadhead Travel
c. Higher Class of Service
Regardless of a passenger carrier’s nomenclature or hierarchy for classes of service, a Flat Bed Seat satisfies the higher class of
service requirements set forth in this Section.
service requirements set forth in this Section.
In the current contract, when is the company required to buy us a First Class ticket?
09-11-2015, 03:20 AM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2005
Posts: 1,273
Originally Posted by TonyC
Did you see anywhere that the seat has to be in Business Class?
Originally Posted by TA2015
Flat Bed Seat: A seat on a commercial deadhead carrier that when fully reclined is greater than 175 degrees.
There's some issues with the TA. I get it. I don't believe that Section 8 is one of them. I think we made some gains there. We may have taken a few minor hits, but overall that section is a plus for the crew force.
09-11-2015, 03:41 AM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by TonyC
I didn't see you in the room when this process began with selecting a Negotiating Committee, forming our openers, and beginning the process of negotiating a new CBA. Our openers did NOT contain restrictions on what could or could not be done with the Defined Benefit Plan, and the first priority was not to keep everyone on the same plan. Certainly that was a priority, but the only priority published in our openers was "Improve DB Plan."
Now, I don't know what kind of lenses you are using to view it, but NO CHANGE is NOT an improvement to the DB plan.
I guess you might go to the car dealership driving your old Pinto and looking for a new 2-door sports car. You send your Pinto to the back to be appraised and cleaned up and tell the salesman you want something faster and sexier than the Pinto, but he tells you that all their 2-door cars are very, very expensive, and besides, none of them have steering wheels. Well, by golly, you can't have a sexy 2-door without a steering wheel, so you dig in and demand you must have a steering wheel or there's no deal. Hang on, the salesman goes to the back and returns a few minutes later to inform you that he has one 2-door with a steering wheel, it's Pinto that some guy just traded in, and as soon as they finish washing it, you can have a look. Where do you sign?
You drive away in a Pinto with a fresh wash and wax, but, by golly, it has the steering wheel you demanded. VICTORY IS YOURS!!!!
Some people might think you'd look foolish doing that, and I think we'd look foolish voluntarily surrendering our A Plan to a Company that is wildly successful, hugely profitable, and growing at a tremendous pace. While others had theirs ripped away in times of bankruptcy or duress, you want to vote yours away in an environment of growth and profit?
If we vote this thing in, that's what we'll be doing, and that's how we'll be known. The pilots who voted away their A plan for absolutely noting in return, while their employer was hauling profits to the bank in giant wheelbarrows.
Can they afford to raise the FAE cap? Of course they can. You remember the MEC Chairman and the Negotiating Committee Chairman telling us all along that our demands (including "Improve DB Plan") were reasonable, and The Company could afford them. Of course, and you trusted them to be telling the truth. Why has the story changed now? Before The Company could afford what we wanted, and you trusted them. Now, The Company can't afford what we wanted, and you trust them now? Well, which was it, err, is it?
I submit they were right before, The Company can afford to raise the FAE cap, or they would not have committed in 2006 to do that very thing for the "next" CBA. Now they've reneged, and we're supposed to buy it? No, as of now they've committed to fund a Defined Benefit Plan for pilots who have not even been hired. What's so different between that and increasing the FAE Cap for a pilot who is already here? It's all about dollars, and they have 'em.
Finally! It's about time you stopped posing as an open-minded fence-sitter.
.
Now, I don't know what kind of lenses you are using to view it, but NO CHANGE is NOT an improvement to the DB plan.
I guess you might go to the car dealership driving your old Pinto and looking for a new 2-door sports car. You send your Pinto to the back to be appraised and cleaned up and tell the salesman you want something faster and sexier than the Pinto, but he tells you that all their 2-door cars are very, very expensive, and besides, none of them have steering wheels. Well, by golly, you can't have a sexy 2-door without a steering wheel, so you dig in and demand you must have a steering wheel or there's no deal. Hang on, the salesman goes to the back and returns a few minutes later to inform you that he has one 2-door with a steering wheel, it's Pinto that some guy just traded in, and as soon as they finish washing it, you can have a look. Where do you sign?
You drive away in a Pinto with a fresh wash and wax, but, by golly, it has the steering wheel you demanded. VICTORY IS YOURS!!!!
Some people might think you'd look foolish doing that, and I think we'd look foolish voluntarily surrendering our A Plan to a Company that is wildly successful, hugely profitable, and growing at a tremendous pace. While others had theirs ripped away in times of bankruptcy or duress, you want to vote yours away in an environment of growth and profit?
If we vote this thing in, that's what we'll be doing, and that's how we'll be known. The pilots who voted away their A plan for absolutely noting in return, while their employer was hauling profits to the bank in giant wheelbarrows.
Can they afford to raise the FAE cap? Of course they can. You remember the MEC Chairman and the Negotiating Committee Chairman telling us all along that our demands (including "Improve DB Plan") were reasonable, and The Company could afford them. Of course, and you trusted them to be telling the truth. Why has the story changed now? Before The Company could afford what we wanted, and you trusted them. Now, The Company can't afford what we wanted, and you trust them now? Well, which was it, err, is it?
I submit they were right before, The Company can afford to raise the FAE cap, or they would not have committed in 2006 to do that very thing for the "next" CBA. Now they've reneged, and we're supposed to buy it? No, as of now they've committed to fund a Defined Benefit Plan for pilots who have not even been hired. What's so different between that and increasing the FAE Cap for a pilot who is already here? It's all about dollars, and they have 'em.
Finally! It's about time you stopped posing as an open-minded fence-sitter.
.
I was willing to be persuaded no, I still am. I haven't heard anything to change my mind.
09-11-2015, 04:45 AM
#54
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: Counting down the bid packs
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by GetRealDude
TBD and S6
The red items ... we agree to disagree.
I consider them points of concession, no improvement (A-Plan), or neutral at best (need improvement).
It's not emotional. It's just my career.
I'm just pointing them out and you would prefer to wear blinders and follow the NC spin.
At the very least, each of the items should have been much improved.
The B-Plan is an improvement. I didn't say it was a concession. I said it was pathetic.
Big difference.
The only one on that list I would amend is the deviation re-booking fee.
Only triggered after the second re-booking based on NC video, but it still applies.
In all things, you get what you negotiate and we got schwacked IMO.
Outmaneuvered and intimidated once again.
I've read the TA and the items on my list are definitely in play.
Your depth of knowledge is either based on being uninformed, a lack of understanding, naive at best, or a non-line pilot.
The company and CRS will max maneuver and exploit any and all language.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the efficiencies we're giving them - which directly correlates to giving up QOL.
Either way, I don't care which way you vote.
IF you're a line guy (?), you'll see the QOL issues in short order if this passes.
The red items ... we agree to disagree.
I consider them points of concession, no improvement (A-Plan), or neutral at best (need improvement).
It's not emotional. It's just my career.
I'm just pointing them out and you would prefer to wear blinders and follow the NC spin.
At the very least, each of the items should have been much improved.
The B-Plan is an improvement. I didn't say it was a concession. I said it was pathetic.
Big difference.
The only one on that list I would amend is the deviation re-booking fee.
Only triggered after the second re-booking based on NC video, but it still applies.
In all things, you get what you negotiate and we got schwacked IMO.
Outmaneuvered and intimidated once again.
I've read the TA and the items on my list are definitely in play.
Your depth of knowledge is either based on being uninformed, a lack of understanding, naive at best, or a non-line pilot.
The company and CRS will max maneuver and exploit any and all language.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the efficiencies we're giving them - which directly correlates to giving up QOL.
Either way, I don't care which way you vote.
IF you're a line guy (?), you'll see the QOL issues in short order if this passes.
- loss of hotel in lieu of DH (bad deal here)
Reality, straight form the TA:
d. Hotel
i. DomesticNon-Intercontinental Deadheads
A pilot who is scheduled for consecutive non-intercontinental deadheads from and back to the same domestic city, may expense up to 3 nights of hotel use in the contract hotel in lieu of the scheduled deadhead tickets. The hotel use shall be between the scheduled deadheads. Use of a non-contract hotel, and any hotel use for greater than 3 nights, requires prior approval of the pilot'’s ACPFleet Captain, or his designee.
ii. InternationalIntercontinental Deadheads
. (a) A pilot who deviates from internationalintercontinental deadhead travel may expense up to 3 nights of hotel use in lieu of the scheduled deadhead ticket. The hotel use at an international location shall be on consecutive days in conjunction with the revenue portion at the beginning or end of a trip. Hotel use for greater than 3 nights requires prior approval of the pilot'’s ACPFleet Captain, or his designee.
. (b) A pilot who deviates from internationalintercontinental deadhead travel may expense hotel(s) as part of his deviation travel as follows:
. (1) he may expense 1 hotel room as a deviation expense, or
. (2) he may expense up to the same number of hotel rooms as in his scheduled deadhead. Intent: A pilot scheduled for an intervening layover during a 2 duty period international deadhead may expense an intervening hotel use enroute to his scheduled destination.
iii. Domestic and International
iii. (a) A pilot who deviates from deadhead travel at the beginning of a trip may check in at the contract hotel a maximum of 1 day2 days early. This hotel use is a deviation expense charged to his bid period deviation bank.
iv. (b) When hotel use is an allowable/reimbursable deviation expense:
(a) (1) the pilot is responsible for his hotel reservation,
(b) (2) reimbursement shall be limited to the contract hotel rate for the city associated with the revenue portion of the trip, and
(c) (3) authorized expenses shall not be direct billed.
So, explain to me how you figure we have lost hotel in lieu of deadhead. Once again, putting out bum gouge and calling it factual.
I gave everyone the perfect reason to vote "NO" without making stuff up. Run your actual loss of pay since March 2013 and see if the signing bonus makes up for it. Mine isn't close. That alone would justify a no vote just to keep the company from pulling the same thing during the next negotiations.
09-11-2015, 05:21 AM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,051
Originally Posted by TheBaron Deux
...So, explain to me how you figure we have lost hotel in lieu of deadhead. Once again, putting out bum gouge and calling it factual...[/COLOR][/COLOR]
09-11-2015, 06:10 AM
#56
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: Counting down the bid packs
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by CloudSailor
The huge loss, came with the introduction of the word INTERCONTINENTAL. It has been explained on here many times. Have someone you know in HKG or CGN explain it to you further if necessary.
For reference:
d. Hotel
i. DomesticNon-Intercontinental Deadheads
A pilot who is scheduled for consecutive non-intercontinental deadheads from and back to the same domestic city, may expense up to 3 nights of hotel use in the contract hotel in lieu of the scheduled deadhead tickets. The hotel use shall be between the scheduled deadheads. Use of a non-contract hotel, and any hotel use for greater than 3 nights, requires prior approval of the pilot'’s ACPFleet Captain, or his designee.
Non-Intercontinental Deadheads include the old Domestic and International. Intra-Asia and Intra-Europe flights fall under this part. Domestic has been dropped and is no longer included in this specific part (that's why it's in red and the new language is in blue. The old International that applied to all international deadheads has been split into International and Intercontinental. See ii of this part for that hotel in lieu of deadhead provision.
09-11-2015, 06:11 AM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2012
Posts: 711
Section 8 Changes Enough To Cause a NO Vote
When I read blue writing (new language) in the TA, I think about worst case scenarios. If I can imagine it, the company can do it. They have shown through 4.A.2.b, Sick Leave notes, and other examples that they can also take language which I think seems clear and interpret it as they wish--and they only don't get their way if we grieve it and win. How often do we grieve something and how often do we win? Not often.
I have a lot of problems with section 8. I think this is one of the sections where we gave back the most with the least in return. Everyone touts being able to use one-half of unused deviation bank money one month in arrears or ahead as a win. It IS an improvement, but I think it's cost neutral or even cost-positive for the company just based on the way pilots' minds work! I did a LOT of deviating over the years. I almost never had a problem staying within my bank. I was very good at spending thousands and giving back tens of dollars and on a rare basis significantly more.
With this TA, I would be more cost conscious in my spending and save more "in case" I need it next month where before I would spend without any regard. Under the TA, I would take a taxi for $40 instead of ordering the car service for $120 so I could keep $40 for ONE month (half of $80). I think this fact of human nature has the likelihood of making this cost neutral or cost positive for the company--it's a bit counterintuitive, but I think likely this would change our behavior. So, while it's an improvement, I don't think it's a huge win and I don't think that I need to give up something else to pay for it--it's already paid for in my opinion.
Therefore, I look at any other givebacks in section 8 as just that--unwarranted give backs being sold as paying for other changes.
Let's take a look at the change in class of service rules. While I agree a flat bed seat (not just flat, but level with the cabin floor) is what's critical for me being to get rest and feel human on the other end, there is a BIG difference in various airline's service and comfort within business class or even business to first. Compare Cathay, Singapore, Emirates business to United business or even Delta's One class. Heck, the foreign carrier's business class is often better than United or American's first class cabin and service based on my personal experience. With United, you can be winging your way to Dubai in a 2-4-2 business class with 20 inch wide seats which don't all have aisle access (people waking you stepping over you) and which have half of the seats facing backwards.
The company has shown they will negotiate savings in their deadheads and use those carriers in roundabout ways to keep the savings. By this I use Asiana as an example from a year ago. Their first class fares were incredibly cheap--their business class fares even more so. The company had been flying pilots to LAX, overnighting them in a hotel, then flying them to/through Seoul on Asiana, at very cheap fares. The extra time in the deadhead, the extra cost of the coach ticket MEM-LAX, and the night in the hotel obviously don't cost more than the fares on other carriers or else they wouldn't be doing it. Asiana's first class fares were about $1200 and their business class fares were about $650 on the routing above. Many pilots avoided these trips because they didn't live in Memphis and they couldn't get into position on even a business class ticket on other carriers! With this change to the TA permitting a "lie flat" seat to fulfill higher class of service requirements, the accepted fare on this routing in business class on Asiana would be about $650. Who could deviate and get there on almost any other airline's coach fare? Good thing you could now make a personal decision to jumpseat on another trip to work the previous month to get enough saved bank at 50 cents on the dollar so you could fly coach to the Pacific. At least, when the company had to book FCF or FFC, when they gave you a cheap discounted first class fare to "work with", you could often make it work in business on your preferred carrier. With the change, you may be able to make it work in coach on your preferred carrier. The company gets the luxury of setting the accepted fare when they make the bidpack. The touted change to accepted fare policy in the TA takes another look when you're assigned the trip. But, that is still far in advance and when you get around to being able to book your deviation ticket, those cheap fare classes of service in business are often gone.
The TA makes it more likely you have to fly coach intercontinental when you deviate, even with being able to use money at 50 cents on the dollar you saved from another month.
People are looking at the comfort level and the "spoiled" pilots getting first class international (excuse me, intercontinental) flights. The issue wasn't being a champagne swilling deviator, it was having enough bank to be able to deviate from your home town. And that deviation bank had to cover some pretty expensive ground transportation to your hotel. Throw in the TA's 18 hour international check-in requirement, and your ever shrinking deviation bank now has to use a business class fare to pay for your ticket, GT, and perhaps an extra day in the hotel. You'll say "use the scheduled DH" from Memphis, or join-up the 2nd leg of the trip (provision in the new TA), but that's not always possible as the cheap fare class may be gone by the time you get assigned the trip, or it may not be feasible from where you live.
So, it's not so much wanting to fly first over business (that is nice and a world of difference by the way), but it's having enough bank to fly as you can to position yourself. Anyone who doesn't think the company over the next decade won't negotiate a sweetheart fare deal with an airline to get you overseas on the cheap isn't thinking about the wise move on the company part to save money. And, that will be negotiated into a fare bucket that is limited and not a true C class fare. Good luck over the next decade deviating and getting there without out of pocket costs for GT, airline tickets, and hotels--even with the sliding 50% of your extra bank money.
I have a lot of problems with section 8. I think this is one of the sections where we gave back the most with the least in return. Everyone touts being able to use one-half of unused deviation bank money one month in arrears or ahead as a win. It IS an improvement, but I think it's cost neutral or even cost-positive for the company just based on the way pilots' minds work! I did a LOT of deviating over the years. I almost never had a problem staying within my bank. I was very good at spending thousands and giving back tens of dollars and on a rare basis significantly more.
With this TA, I would be more cost conscious in my spending and save more "in case" I need it next month where before I would spend without any regard. Under the TA, I would take a taxi for $40 instead of ordering the car service for $120 so I could keep $40 for ONE month (half of $80). I think this fact of human nature has the likelihood of making this cost neutral or cost positive for the company--it's a bit counterintuitive, but I think likely this would change our behavior. So, while it's an improvement, I don't think it's a huge win and I don't think that I need to give up something else to pay for it--it's already paid for in my opinion.
Therefore, I look at any other givebacks in section 8 as just that--unwarranted give backs being sold as paying for other changes.
Let's take a look at the change in class of service rules. While I agree a flat bed seat (not just flat, but level with the cabin floor) is what's critical for me being to get rest and feel human on the other end, there is a BIG difference in various airline's service and comfort within business class or even business to first. Compare Cathay, Singapore, Emirates business to United business or even Delta's One class. Heck, the foreign carrier's business class is often better than United or American's first class cabin and service based on my personal experience. With United, you can be winging your way to Dubai in a 2-4-2 business class with 20 inch wide seats which don't all have aisle access (people waking you stepping over you) and which have half of the seats facing backwards.
The company has shown they will negotiate savings in their deadheads and use those carriers in roundabout ways to keep the savings. By this I use Asiana as an example from a year ago. Their first class fares were incredibly cheap--their business class fares even more so. The company had been flying pilots to LAX, overnighting them in a hotel, then flying them to/through Seoul on Asiana, at very cheap fares. The extra time in the deadhead, the extra cost of the coach ticket MEM-LAX, and the night in the hotel obviously don't cost more than the fares on other carriers or else they wouldn't be doing it. Asiana's first class fares were about $1200 and their business class fares were about $650 on the routing above. Many pilots avoided these trips because they didn't live in Memphis and they couldn't get into position on even a business class ticket on other carriers! With this change to the TA permitting a "lie flat" seat to fulfill higher class of service requirements, the accepted fare on this routing in business class on Asiana would be about $650. Who could deviate and get there on almost any other airline's coach fare? Good thing you could now make a personal decision to jumpseat on another trip to work the previous month to get enough saved bank at 50 cents on the dollar so you could fly coach to the Pacific. At least, when the company had to book FCF or FFC, when they gave you a cheap discounted first class fare to "work with", you could often make it work in business on your preferred carrier. With the change, you may be able to make it work in coach on your preferred carrier. The company gets the luxury of setting the accepted fare when they make the bidpack. The touted change to accepted fare policy in the TA takes another look when you're assigned the trip. But, that is still far in advance and when you get around to being able to book your deviation ticket, those cheap fare classes of service in business are often gone.
The TA makes it more likely you have to fly coach intercontinental when you deviate, even with being able to use money at 50 cents on the dollar you saved from another month.
People are looking at the comfort level and the "spoiled" pilots getting first class international (excuse me, intercontinental) flights. The issue wasn't being a champagne swilling deviator, it was having enough bank to be able to deviate from your home town. And that deviation bank had to cover some pretty expensive ground transportation to your hotel. Throw in the TA's 18 hour international check-in requirement, and your ever shrinking deviation bank now has to use a business class fare to pay for your ticket, GT, and perhaps an extra day in the hotel. You'll say "use the scheduled DH" from Memphis, or join-up the 2nd leg of the trip (provision in the new TA), but that's not always possible as the cheap fare class may be gone by the time you get assigned the trip, or it may not be feasible from where you live.
So, it's not so much wanting to fly first over business (that is nice and a world of difference by the way), but it's having enough bank to fly as you can to position yourself. Anyone who doesn't think the company over the next decade won't negotiate a sweetheart fare deal with an airline to get you overseas on the cheap isn't thinking about the wise move on the company part to save money. And, that will be negotiated into a fare bucket that is limited and not a true C class fare. Good luck over the next decade deviating and getting there without out of pocket costs for GT, airline tickets, and hotels--even with the sliding 50% of your extra bank money.
Last edited by Raptor; 09-11-2015 at 06:28 AM.
09-11-2015, 06:13 AM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2012
Posts: 711
Let's talk about the wording in the TA about higher class of service in a flat bed seats as being all we need. The definition from the TA: Flat Bed Seat: A seat on a commercial deadhead carrier that when fully reclined is greater than 175 degrees.
Hmmm...not 180 degrees, not fully flat to the ground so you aren't angled, and not requiring direct aisle access. Take a look at seatguru's list of carriers that still have angled lie flat business class seats. (Remember trying to sleep in those old NWA "flat, 180 degree recline" but angled seats...I do. Always sliding down the seat and couldn't get much sleep. If we're going to put this in the TA, to pay (and why does everything have to be a zero-sum trade, where are our improvements?) for other "improvements" in section 8, why don't we have limiting language? I can't fathom why we wouldn't insist on 180 degree recline, fully flat to the cabin floor, and with direct aisle access? Even with those restrictions, giving up the ability to deviate on business and not coach intercontinental and pay for GT and day early hotel is a no-brainer call: HUGE giveback. Let's look at how many airlines and plane configurations are angled lie-flat and would meet the new TA definition. Can you see the company negotiating cheap business class fares on any of these airlines and you flying them for the next decade? Take a look at the list. Over the next decade and forever more (once you give back QOL rules, you never give them back). You say it doesn't affect me NOW, but over the next 10 years and forever more, it WILL affect you as you progress in seniority and seat and plane. With us moving towards a 777/767/757 fleet, you WILL be in a seat where this will affect you.
Also, when we got first class deviation (among other things), part of our giveback at that time was an extra day of work. We gave up QOL in the past for this tangible improvement and now we're giving that improvement back for a further degradation in our QOL/workrules. We are our own worst enemy!
Take a look at this link: Long-haul Business Class Comparison Chart - SeatGuru Click on the seat types header and it will sort to provide all the angled lie flat seats by airline and aircraft type. It's a huge list, I tried to post it here but it exceeded the forum character limit of 50,000! I'm sure you'll find airlines you have seen and will see in our bidpack for years to come.
Hmmm...not 180 degrees, not fully flat to the ground so you aren't angled, and not requiring direct aisle access. Take a look at seatguru's list of carriers that still have angled lie flat business class seats. (Remember trying to sleep in those old NWA "flat, 180 degree recline" but angled seats...I do. Always sliding down the seat and couldn't get much sleep. If we're going to put this in the TA, to pay (and why does everything have to be a zero-sum trade, where are our improvements?) for other "improvements" in section 8, why don't we have limiting language? I can't fathom why we wouldn't insist on 180 degree recline, fully flat to the cabin floor, and with direct aisle access? Even with those restrictions, giving up the ability to deviate on business and not coach intercontinental and pay for GT and day early hotel is a no-brainer call: HUGE giveback. Let's look at how many airlines and plane configurations are angled lie-flat and would meet the new TA definition. Can you see the company negotiating cheap business class fares on any of these airlines and you flying them for the next decade? Take a look at the list. Over the next decade and forever more (once you give back QOL rules, you never give them back). You say it doesn't affect me NOW, but over the next 10 years and forever more, it WILL affect you as you progress in seniority and seat and plane. With us moving towards a 777/767/757 fleet, you WILL be in a seat where this will affect you.
Also, when we got first class deviation (among other things), part of our giveback at that time was an extra day of work. We gave up QOL in the past for this tangible improvement and now we're giving that improvement back for a further degradation in our QOL/workrules. We are our own worst enemy!
Take a look at this link: Long-haul Business Class Comparison Chart - SeatGuru Click on the seat types header and it will sort to provide all the angled lie flat seats by airline and aircraft type. It's a huge list, I tried to post it here but it exceeded the forum character limit of 50,000! I'm sure you'll find airlines you have seen and will see in our bidpack for years to come.
Last edited by Raptor; 09-11-2015 at 06:33 AM.
09-11-2015, 06:31 AM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
Need to add loss of Hub turn rooms to the Red column as it is incorrect. It is applicable only in certain circumstances, and never applies to Day Hub turns.
Pilot non-use of their contractual hotel room during night Hub turns is a recurring issue, and is an interest of concern currently as indicated by ALPA Comms.
Personally, no issue with anyone who doesn't want to waste the travel time provided they simply grab a recliner. Grabbing a sleep room can screw the bro's who foolishly went to the Buffeteria, or wanted to chat\work on a computer for a bit before signing up for a sleep room. Or who simply arrive late due to a mx issue
Pilot non-use of their contractual hotel room during night Hub turns is a recurring issue, and is an interest of concern currently as indicated by ALPA Comms.
Personally, no issue with anyone who doesn't want to waste the travel time provided they simply grab a recliner. Grabbing a sleep room can screw the bro's who foolishly went to the Buffeteria, or wanted to chat\work on a computer for a bit before signing up for a sleep room. Or who simply arrive late due to a mx issue
09-11-2015, 06:37 AM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2012
Posts: 711
Originally Posted by TheBaron Deux
OK. I'll explain it to you as well since you apparently went to the same school as so many others.
For reference:
d. Hotel
i. DomesticNon-Intercontinental Deadheads
A pilot who is scheduled for consecutive non-intercontinental deadheads from and back to the same domestic city, may expense up to 3 nights of hotel use in the contract hotel in lieu of the scheduled deadhead tickets. The hotel use shall be between the scheduled deadheads. Use of a non-contract hotel, and any hotel use for greater than 3 nights, requires prior approval of the pilot'’s ACPFleet Captain, or his designee.
Non-Intercontinental Deadheads include the old Domestic and International. Intra-Asia and Intra-Europe flights fall under this part. Domestic has been dropped and is no longer included in this specific part (that's why it's in red and the new language is in blue. The old International that applied to all international deadheads has been split into International and Intercontinental. See ii of this part for that hotel in lieu of deadhead provision.
For reference:
d. Hotel
i. DomesticNon-Intercontinental Deadheads
A pilot who is scheduled for consecutive non-intercontinental deadheads from and back to the same domestic city, may expense up to 3 nights of hotel use in the contract hotel in lieu of the scheduled deadhead tickets. The hotel use shall be between the scheduled deadheads. Use of a non-contract hotel, and any hotel use for greater than 3 nights, requires prior approval of the pilot'’s ACPFleet Captain, or his designee.
Non-Intercontinental Deadheads include the old Domestic and International. Intra-Asia and Intra-Europe flights fall under this part. Domestic has been dropped and is no longer included in this specific part (that's why it's in red and the new language is in blue. The old International that applied to all international deadheads has been split into International and Intercontinental. See ii of this part for that hotel in lieu of deadhead provision.
I'm not sure what you're saying? I thought I understood you to say in a post just prior to this that someone else was wrong when they mentioned the new Non-Intercontinental vs Intercontinental Hotel-In-Lieu-of deadhead rules were a giveback...and you said they're not?
You don't think this changed TA wording wipes out the ability of the FDA pilots to use hotel in lieu of DH for their benefit while living overseas?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
