Adlerdriver

I guess my English is lacking. Can you explain what you mean by this and perhaps offer a real world application relating to DH/deviation?

Yes, to CDG and most of Europe, you will have block under 10 - so business or first at company discretion. You cherry pick Europe to make your point, but this whole discussion started with a DH to Asia.

Maybe this JAL fare of $2031 is an anomaly but, I still find it strange that if I wanted a ticket from LAX-KIX tomorrow or next month, no such fare exists. Your underlined statement above - is valid only because of this ridiculously low JAL fare which appears to be a one day special. The only two flights from the west coast to KIX non-stop are UAL and JAL. Under the old contract, we would have been booked in discounted FC on UAL. Assuming it is an aberration for a moment and normally JAL fares far exceed discounted US carriers........ so old contract, discounted first - new contract discounted BC. Big difference.

Adlerdriver

First, I'm not the one trying to DH to KIX. The OP brought this whole thing up. Maybe we are flying different routes. I used to be able to get anywhere on the planet from my home airport and remain at or under the bank easily. The trend is away from that in my experience.

My point is more about the decline of our accepted fares, not what kind of seat the scheduled DH puts you in. This JAL angled thing appears to be some kind of BS short-notice thing these guys got screwed with getting called off reserve. A two-class airplane with an angled seat to/from Asia has not been the norm as far as industry trends go.

Yes, nothing stopped me from ending up in an angled seat on a 15 hour DH under the old contract. However, since we would normally be in discounted FC on that type of flight under the old contract, there were no such seats in FC (on US carriers).

Your generalities concerning industry trends are valid in some markets/some airlines (Delta, for example). However, UAL 747s, 777 and even 767 have and will continue to have 3 class cabins. AA's older 777-200 still have some 3-class configurations and their 20 brand new 777-300s rolled off the line with 3-class cabins. Those AA birds are serving HKG, ICN, LHR and destination in South American to name a few. The end result of these airlines continuing to offer true FC is that we will get stuck with a BC fare as long as it's flat-bed. Deviation is more difficult and will cost us money out of our own pocket under this new contract.

FDXLAG

The Flat Bed Seat language has everything to do with how you can be booked, it has nothing to do with bank. For a practical application, had the JAL flight in question had FC but no seats were available so they booked you in BC, your bank should be authorized FC.

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.

What language copied from the contract in the 2011 required UAL discounted First? Old contract new contract same language. The difference is JAL BC on this flight beats UAL FC so they booked you on it. If the JAL flight had a discounted FC they would have been required to book you on it

If a deadhead has 10 or more scheduled block hours, the
travel shall be booked in the following order based upon availability
on the scheduled flight:
(a) First Class (discounted);
(b) Business Class (full fare or discounted);

(c) First Class (full fare).

Again what has changed is not the contract language, but the number of airlines only offering Business on particular routes. I don't like it but it is legal and contract 2015 has nothing to do with it. Plenty of times coming back from CDG (two legs to MEM) I think Block and or Duty authorized First, but because AA only had BC, that is what we got.

Adlerdriver

Look at your quote below for the hierarchy of classes. If we get a discount on JAL, then I think I agree with above. However, we usually do not. Therefore, full-fare business would be all that is authorized (old or new contract) and bank would be BC.

If we got discounted tickets with JAL and the flight had flat-bed FC and the angled BC the OP used, then yes, discounted FC was the authorized fare and should have been credited to the travel bank even though the only thing available was angled BC in your scenario.

Forget this JAL angled seat anomaly to KIX for this discussion. This has nothing to do with airlines only offering BC on certain routes. Because there are still plenty of routes flown by US airlines with three class configurations. Pick a bigger Asia market we commonly use like NRT. Go to route pricing on the web site and try to get from one of the big west coast bases for US airlines to NRT in one flight. Pick SFO: On any given day, the cheapest way to do that is UAL. Since we do not normally get discounted tickets from foreign carriers, the US carriers are going to be cheapest. UAL offers true FC seats and BC seats in that market. THAT'S the factual reality tomorrow, next week or next month based on the information on the company website we would use to buy our own tickets - so I have to assume that's what global travel would be using also.

The hierarchy in the contract still requires discounted first class UNLESS there is flat-bed in business. Given the fact that UAL now has flat-bed seats in business class, we would get ticketed in business class and the accepted fare would be lower. Under the old contract, we would get ticketed in discounted first class and that would be the bank. According to the route pricing (UAL, SFO-NRT): BC - $~7900 FC - $~11100

Going to HKG out of DFW on AA? BC - $~3400 FC - $~4500
Now we get the lower - before, it would have been the higher.

FDXLAG

So do you have some contract language you can point to that changed and allows the company to do this when they didn't (couldn't?)before?

Adlerdriver

Yes. Both contracts include the following language:

Section 8A.5.c.

iii. If a deadhead has 10 or more scheduled block hours, the travel shall be booked in the following order based upon availability on the scheduled flight:
(a) First Class (discounted);
(b) Business Class (full fare or discounted);
(c) First Class (full fare)

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 fist class;
(2) Full fare first class;
(3) Business class

Since the SFO-NRT flight is over 10 block hours (but duty is under 16 hours), the first list of classes applied under the old contract and discounted first class would have been authorized, found and ticketed on the current UAL flight operating on that city pair. Bank would be based on the discounted first class ticket price.

The DFW-NRT flight is over 16 hours of duty, so the second set of criteria would apply. This requires first class no matter if discounted or not, however with AA it is still discounted. So, old contract, first class still authorized and the bank would reflect that as well.

As I said, none of the red language above has changed. It is present in both contracts. Under the old contract it would have been applied as I have stated above.

Under the new contract, this statement is inserted at the beginning of section 8A.5.c:

Higher Class of Service
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.

Since this statement was inserted prior to any discussion of class of service, it trumps all the criteria list above about class of service. It's like one of those flow charts for alternates (or the joke one for something you broke: can you hide it?, can you blame it on someone else?). They go through the options of class of service based on the situation, but if they get to "Flat-bed seat" before they get to first class, then you get the Flat-bed seat regardless of the class of service it is found in.

So, both example flights, SFO-NRT and DFW-HKG have flat-bed seats in BC. That satisfies the higher class requirement and has become the authorized class of service on those flight, resulting in the lower of the two fares (BC) for each city pair (listed in my last post) for deviation purposes. There's no language in the contract to support crediting anyone's travel bank with something higher than business, because the trump statement above makes BC the "authorized" class of service based on the presence of a Flat-bed seat.

I'm not the only one who sees it this way based on this quote from back on page 3 of this thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by machz990

The contract is written with a hierarchical structure , main paragraph then sub paragraphs. Our negotiating committee said all the old language on first class and banks was preserved and we would still get the higher bank if warranted. Not the case at all. The new language of, "a lie-flat seat satisfies the higher class of service" was inserted into the new CBA above the old language so therefore the old language is subordinate to the new language due to the hierarchy. When a lie-flat seat is available the company stops reading. All language below that statement becomes N/A.

And - most importantly, this application of the "trump statement" is being applied in both situation as expected. We have a bunch of DFW-HKG deadheads on AA in the 777 bidpack. The FDA guys in HKG use that flight all the time to get to training. It is over 16 hours duty and is being ticketed in BC now. Travel banks are being credited with the BC fare. That's what the contract says, that's what the negotiating committee said was going to happen, it's a concession 57% of us agreed to.

My only mistaken understanding was that in exchange for this concession, we would now use flat-bed as the standard and no longer see the angled seats. I've been corrected on that which makes this whole concession that much worse, IMO.

Tuck

Adler - yeah I see the shortfalls but that was all very obvious. I've never heard anyone ever imply that the company would try to change routings to put us on lie flat BC - that doesn't even make sense. There was a trade - did u think we were just getting intl on 2.5 for free? It's all about money and of course they had to save somewhere. Now from someone who used to DH on CX in FC all the time, I have no problem taking BC now - it's really not that big a deal. If u r saying it sucks - Ok I get it and this was all brought up during the voting period - it's a trade off. You sound like this was some sort of surprise - that's why I said read the contract - no surprise here - talk to the guy on the NC that worked that section and he'll tell u now, as he did in September, the plus and minus of it. Here's another one - the A plan will not be indexed for inflation - the cap remains at $130k - not a good deal but shouldn't be a surprise. There are lots of other trade offs and these were tirelessly explained in multiple ALPA and other documents that were well communicated. I have a hard time believing you didn't see all these.

kronan

Adler,
you're forgetting this language at the very end of the section you quotedfrom

"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."

Scheduled, you get what you get, but if FC is available on that flight, deviation bank should be credited with that fare quote.

Adlerdriver

This is referring to a situation where your ticketed seat does not meet the higher class of service requirements. Like you get stuck in coach because business is full. You still get the authorized BC fare in your travel bank. Just because FC is available on a flight, doesn't mean you're "authorized" that if the flat-bed trump gets played.

Use the 16 hour duty day scenario. The rules used to require full fare or discounted FC before business. Those rules are still there, but they get trumped if they can put you in a flat-bed BC seat. This scenario does not somehow mean you were still "authorized" FC and would get your deviation bank credited with a FC fare. That "authorization" for FC based on the listed hierarchy is no longer a player since flat-bed satisfies the higher class of service requirement.

kronan

Your take doesn't seem to match up with our Unions take, nor does it match my recollection of the discussions regarding this very topic during the ratification period. Time will tell

http://fdx.alpa.org/LinkClick.aspx?f...3d&tabid=10172