5a
The company shall provide and pay for any hotel room and transportation for company purposes when the pilot is required by the company to be OUT OF the pilot’s domicile.
New hire pilots are considered to be domiciled in DEN for the first 45 days of employment per LOA 24. They are not eligible for company paid hotels, just like DEN based fos going to upgrade or den based pilots in recurrent, or mia based pilots going to sim.

So that says when the company must provide hotels, but it doesn’t say that they aren’t allowed to at any other time. I see your point, but this seems a bit grey to me. Grey area in a contract always favors the company.

I would say there is a clear intent and certainly a clear past practice. I would hope that ALPA files an association grievance if the company tries to pull this crap, but that is just me.

This all seems about right.

- Pilots scream that we can’t attract or keep new hires and say that the company needs to do something.

- Company does something.

- Pilots b**ch.

Wrong, I have never screamed about any such thing. The only thing I scream is the company should abide by the CBA they agreed to. Maybe if they did,(ie company needs to do something) we wouldn’t have such a problem attracting pilots. Attracting pilots is the company’s problem, not ours. But instead let’s forget about the hundred of outstanding grievances, the BS section 19s, the upper management’s complete inability to run the airline, and applaud the company disregarding yet another CBA provision and providing new hires with hotel rooms, GMAFB. Pilots are clueless, yes I b!tch when the company ignores the CBA, I guess my question is, why don’t you?

I don’t disagree with that, but the company really isn’t disregarding the CBA. As pointed out, it states when the company MUST provide hotels. It doesn’t restrict them from doing it at other times and there’s nothing that says they CAN’T provide hotels in domicile. Hypothetical scenario… A pilot has two back to back trips with 11 hours rest in between. It’s the middle of winter, it’s a snowstorm and the pilot can’t drive home after completing the first trip. He asks if it’s possible for company to provide a hotel in domicile due to the circumstances and the company honors the request. This is a violation and needs to be grieved? In fact, that’s no hypothetical. Hasn’t the company in the past provided in domicile hotels during IROPs upon pilot request?

I’ve filed my share of grievances when it’s necessary, but this is just trying to pick a fight that isn’t there based on contract language IMO. We can agree to disagree.

the CBA provides the company the ability to furnish the pilot a hotel in that situation. In the case of providing hotels to new hire pilots in their domiciles, there is a past practice going back 20 plus years where that has never happened, just like there is a similar past practice of the company never providing pilots hotel rooms in domicile while in training. There is nothing gray based on that language and that past practice, period, end of sentence. Sorry but that is a fact.
the company has just announced a merger and if you think a kinder gentler indigo is going to show up at the table, you guys are kidding yourselves. Let’s not give away the little bit of leverage that we currently have.

You make a fair argument. I do appreciate the opinion and perspective. We’ll have to see how it plays out.

Attending the MTC in Orlando; can someone pm me that's attended one of these? Looking for some info on the process and what's needed/expected. Anything more than just an updated resume and 15 minutes with a chief?

I'll be there as well. Would love any info that's avaiable.