FDXLAG

Assuming the OP was booked for duty over 16:

8.A.3.a.v. If a pilot scheduled for a nonstop deadhead over 16 hours on duty,who is not booked in first class, deviates from the scheduled deadhead in order to obtain first class on another carrier, the following shall apply:
(a) the pilot shall include with his deviation expense report an e-mail from corporate travel indicating that first class was not available on the originally scheduled deadhead at the time the booking was made; and
(b) the provision of the e-mail in Section 8.C.3.a.v.(a) (the preceding paragraph) shall entitle the pilot to be reimbursed for his deviation ticket up to the full fare first class cost of a direct, nonstop deviation deadhead whose origin and destination match the scheduled deadhead, regardless of his deviation bank value. A deviation deadhead covered by this paragraph must be among the standard routings scheduled by the carrier.


8.A.5.c.iv. If the deadhead is scheduled for more than 16 hours duty, the following shall apply:
(a) The flight must be a non-stop flight; and
(b) A special booking priority shall apply to deadheads scheduled over 16 hours. That priority shall be:
(1) Discounted first class;
(2) Full fare first class;
(3) Business class

8.A.5.c.vi. Regardless of the class of service actually ticketed, a pilot’s deviation bank shall be credited with the Baseline Fare for the highest class of service which is authorized on the scheduled deadhead flight, and which exists on that flight.

Adlerdriver

Okay. Then what is the point of the following new language in the contract?

8.A.5.c.i. 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.

Why did anyone on either side choose to include this if everyone is going to ignore it and continue to apply passenger carrier's nomenclature for service (i.e. "First Class") and hierarchies previously included in the contract even though they end up in a Flat Bed seat?

Tell me how this language is supposed to be applied and what you think it means?

busdriver12

Here is what I believe the issue is. Even though getting a Flat Bed seat apparently trumps all the requirements as far as booking a scheduled ticket in this situation, I don't think it trumps the requirement to get the bank.

This paragraph seems clear to me. And the Baseline Fare for this flight, is first class, as it exists, and it is authorized. Even though booking a Flat Bed seat in business is apparently good enough, First class is definitely authorized. It seems indisputable.

8.A.5.c.vi. Regardless of the class of service actually ticketed, a pilot’s deviation bank shall be credited with the Baseline Fare for the highest class of service which is authorized on the scheduled deadhead flight, and which exists on that flight.

Nowhere does it say that if a Flat Bed seat complies, that you are then limited to that bank. It says the highest class of service authorized.

HIFLYR

My experence is CE does everything they can. The problem is above them with the lawyers !! They never want to fight unless it's a slam dunk and they simply are not motivated to do so. We the body have allowed the MEC to allow this. We the body need to demand the MEC to run things not the lawyers. If the lawyers get ****ed fire them and hire ones who are motivated and tie thier pay to success not just getting a salary.

Rock

This is a discussion worth having because the mechanics of how to read our contract don't apply solely to deadhead fares, and are very important in determining whether both sides are adhering to the contract. With that said, I am not a lawyer and have never been involved in labor contract negotiations so everything that follows is MY thoughts on the matter. I would love to hear alternative viewpoints.
Like any legal document, each word of our contract has a specific meaning. Similarly, every section of our contract has a specific purpose and nothing is included in our contract if it has no purpose or relevance. With that in mind, if the section you quoted is interpreted as you believe it to be, Sections 8.A.5.c.iii-vi are completely irrelevant and have no purpose in our contract. They should have been stricken from our new contract like a lot of other redundant or no longer applicable language was. But they weren't. So that leads me to believe that Section 8.A.5.c.i. isn't the trump card you believe it to be. Maybe, its purpose is to clarify that even if an airline calls folding chairs and orange crates, "First" and "Business" class, the higher class of service set forth in the section requires a Flat Bed Seat. I believe you previously pointed out that if a three class of service aircraft has angled flat seats for business and lay flat seats for first class, we would be ticketed in first class. Section 8.A.5.c.i. supports that contention.
Just some other food for thought...the outline structure of our contract does provide kind of a flow chart of "if-then" statements. Using Section 8.A.5.c as an example, paragraph i stands alone. The following lower case Roman numeral paragraphs are not subservient to it. They also stand alone and are separate paragraphs within Section 8.A.5.c. and apply to separate, specific contractual issues involving Higher Class of Service. Conversally, the sub paragraphs under Section 8.A.5.c.iv. are all subservient to Section 8.A.5.c.iv. If it doesn't apply, they don't apply. If that wasn't the case, I could simply reference ONLY 8.A.5.c.iv.(c). and attempt to file a grievance any time Corporate Travel doesn't attempt to secure me first class seating on any trip. Or, as happened to me recently, the company could attempt to deny me pay I was due, by referencing a sub-bullet of a paragraph that would actually make sense except that the initiating paragraph specifically referenced conditions that did not apply to my situation.
And finally, if anyone is still reading this, the meaning of the word "Shall" needs to be clearly defined. It's one of the most used words in our contract. "The Company shall...." Is "shall" an obligation? If so, then the rest of the language becomes a lot clearer with respect to what all parties of the contract can expect.

FDXLAG

I guess that is what we will find out. The point is the language is very specific on duty over 16. Under 16 I would think a lie flat seat suffices. Of course if you are the type of guy who says Global Travel screwed me without getting proactive then it is moot what the contract says. There is no arguing that if the contract is read in English over 16 and deviate to get a first class seat and the company will buy the ticket.

The way I choose to interpret 8.A.5.c.i. is that a 2 class operation with BC flat beds counts as filling the FC requirement. But if FC is available over 16 it must be booked first. And my interpretation is as good as anyone elses until we get a ruling.

Waldorf

The company has interpreted this section of the contract and is applying it as they see fit. Corporate travel already has instructions on what class to book. Maybe the FC fare will be given to a persons bank, I doubt it. Fred said this contract is cost neutral and it is. It shouldn't be too hard to figure out this company interpretation of DH's is just the tip of whats to come that won't be for our benefit.

MaxKts

Holy sh1t Batman!!! Unlike you, who just saw $$$$$, many of us were NO voters for this exact reason. Too much permissive language, contract sections that contradict themselves and no real definitions of what words/acronyms mean!! SMH

FDXLAG

If this is permissive language than we are screwed no matter what and we might as well take any money we can get.

8.A.5.c.vi. Regardless of the class of service actually ticketed, a pilot’s deviation bank shall be credited with the Baseline Fare for the highest class of service which is authorized on the scheduled deadhead flight, and which exists on that flight.

Rock

Nice try. I'm in the lowest paying seat in the company by choice. Could be a widebody captain. If I was doing this for $$$$$ I would have made that move several bids ago. It's all about QOL for me. Which is exactly why I was a yes vote.