PolicyWonk

Page 133. Trains.

Didn't resolve ambiguity between air vs surface limit. For example, do you need fleet captain authority to exceed $100 on a train or not? You don't on a plane. Especially pertinent in Europe.

The $100 limit should be bumped up.

Fix it all at the same time. Even $200 is petty.

Mother-may-I ? Please?

Easy fix. If we do it again quickly.

screamin jet

Below is the excerpt from the CBA. I have NEVER gained nor did I have to for train travels subjected to any $100/200 limits. Train travel away!

Surface transportation of reasonable expense between commercial locations, or between a residence and the field airport/FedEx field operations area, requires prior approval by a pilot’s ACP. Such approvals may be granted on an on-going basis.

Intent: ACP approval will not be required for qualifying ground transportation up to $100 per occurrence. Deviation ground transportation greater than $100 up to $200 must have specific ACP approval. Deviation ground transportation for amounts greater than $200 must be approved by a pilot's RCP. In both instances, a copy of the e-mail documenting the ACP/RCP approval must be included with the pilot's expense report. Approvals may be granted on an on-going basis. It is not the intent of this policy to allow extravagant travel when reasonable, lower cost transportation is available.
A pilot who is assigned to initial, transition or upgrade training away from his base may elect to drive his vehicle to the training location. In this event, the AAA calculated mileage, round trip from the pilot’s permanent residence to the training facility at the current IRS mileage rate shall be allowable/reimbursable. (e.g., Training in DFW and a pilot drives his car to and from).
Trains
Travel by train or subway are allowable/reimbursable expenses to the same extent air travel or surface transportation expenses would have been allowable/reimbursable.

CloudSailor

PolicyWonk, I used trains in CGN all the time. Never required a pre-approval for any amount. It is separate from GT.

PolicyWonk

Thank you CloudSailor.

Thank you screamin jet.

You can see the ambiguity that should be resolved in the next TA.

"Travel by train or subway are allowable/reimbursable expenses to the same extent air travel (or surface transportation) expenses would have been allowable/reimbursable."

I would omit the portion I put parentheses around. Though not on my top 30, why allow inexactitude and ambiguity that doesn't help us.

Someone who doesn't have local knowledge and reads the contract might jump through extra hoops needlessly if exceeding the ground travel limit.

I've heard of denials for reasonable ground training requests but the pilot didn't know who was denying it. Was it the Fleet Manager at the low limit or RCP at the higher threshold? No initials or name in the rejection. Then what? Added complexity to the hassle factor of getting where he needed to be in a timely manner and a right frame of mind.

Coupled with the hopeful removal of the 24/72 hour limits, and it gives even more latitude for getting rest enroute.

Thanks again to both of you.

USMCFDX

I use the train all the time NRT-KIX and if my pre approval date is incorrect it is always capped at $100 until I call and have it fixed. No pre approval no soup for you is my experience with trains.

TonyC

Of course, we all know that ambiguous language always accrues to the benefit of the pilot, right?







.

PolicyWonk

Tony

This is almost the only instance I can think of where ambiguity is interpreted generously.

I can only think of one more, but I'm reluctant to draw attention to it for fear that if I do, it will go the way of all flesh.

CloudSailor

Do you reconcile it under "train" or under "ground/surface transportation"? If under train, and you still have this issue, my apologies for posting what I did. I had never heard of this being an issue. Thanks.

FoxHunter

I used AMTRAK plus the trains in Europe all the time. It was always reported as train travel, most of the time $100++ and never had to get approval, never had it questioned.

screamin jet

You're quite welcome PolicyWonk.

The idea on the train travel is that it's an acceptable expense which had NEVER been subjected to any kind of fleet manager's (old was RCP) pre-approval limits via our contract. At least since 1998. You would just use your accepted fares or air travel banks to cover those train expenses. Now, on the ground transportation such as utilizing a private limousine ride, it is different and does require a fleet manager's (or designated) approval above the $200.00 via the PFC expense part of the website. Trains get reconciled on your expense report under just that, TRAINS.

And, if I'm not mistaken, train travel in 1st class never had any limitation on it. Unlike air travel's accepted fares and class contract parameters. Let's use the example of a mid-trip deviation OR even a front or back-end as well. I've always liked this flexibility for us. Especially in Europe where the comfort and convenience of the high speed trains are great. Particularly in 1st class in the private compartments with a glass of wine!

I only had wished we could use our own personal vehicle to or from a trip, and getting say a government mileage. Particularly in the U.S. where you might elect to drive to your trip depending. LIABILITY onto the company was the major reason we weren't able to. So I was told by the FDX MEC. Suppose that makes sense. If this TA 2015 were to pass, it seems as though there will be enhancements to even improve our flexibility in deviation banks by having rolling funds. In so far, at least NOT end up owing the company any of our own money when we clearly save them a bundle anyway!