Originally Posted by Junglejet4life (Post 2633449)

There are technological mechanisms for revealing the redacted portion of the envelope you posted.

Originally Posted by Junglejet4life (Post 2633449)

There are technological mechanisms for revealing the redacted portion of the envelope you posted.

Originally Posted by seekingblue (Post 2633155)

Per the Q and A:

Section 25.R.6.b What if a pilot attempts to call back within this 15 min window but is forced to be on an extended hold time on the phone system? It’s common during bad weather days to be on hold over 20-30 min. How does the phone tree “callback” option apply to this as well?
Per this section, the pilot has 15 minutes to initiate a responding call to Crew Services. The initiation of the call satisfies the response requirement. The pilot would still be responsible for reporting for duty no less than 2:30 hours (plus additional time for co-bases) after the initial contact attempt by Crew Services. When lengthy hold times are in effect, the callback option would at least provide a record that the pilot attempted contact with Crew Services.

Edit: what you and Queue seem to be missing is that these rules weren't created in a vacuum. There are thousands of pages of notes (explaining intent of each piece of the contract). This would be an example of where this applies.

Originally Posted by seekingblue (Post 2633155)

Edit: what you and Queue seem to be missing is that these rules weren't created in a vacuum. There are thousands of pages of notes (explaining intent of each piece of the contract). This would be an example of where this applies.

Originally Posted by PasserOGas (Post 2632916)

Hey! Awesome! Where are the notes published so I can reference them when I fail to make positive contact?

Or do I have to wait until I am in a post discipline grievance to see them?

Originally Posted by queue (Post 2633831)

Incorrect. You cannot apply conventional wisdom and intent to contracts. If it's not written, it doesn't exist. If you try to throw intent, even if documented, you always run the risk of losing. Unless the contract is explicit, it will be like 3A all over again....

Too many BJ pilots don't get that their conventional fuzzy logic doesn't apply in this kind of situation. Weak language is room for BJ lawyers to screw us.... they've done it over and over again yet people here don't learn.


This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

Originally Posted by Bluedriver (Post 2633220)

Que Hyperboy checking the union database to find out WHO asked said question...

The actual answer doesn't matter in the context of the vote. The TA is the TA is the TA.

Even if we HATE the answer, it's not changing, so vote YES, vote NO, whatever.

The answer will be important to those it affects in the day-to-day operation and will be resolved via "grievance" I'm quite sure.

Originally Posted by dontsurf (Post 2634683)

just for fun, let's say we do announce some 321lr orders at Farnborough. how does our augmented section stack up against united, delta, American? i don't know anything about augmented operations, so i'm just curious how the TA compares.

Originally Posted by seekingblue (Post 2634690)

Same question to those in the know.

The TA bullet points say,"industry standard augmented operations language." I'd be curious to see how it fits.

Doing a bit of reading it looks like we are guaranteed a rest seat in Mint. Mint style crew meals etc etc.