The TA is finally here
07-12-2018 | 04:51 PM
#562
Banned
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,132
Likes: 0
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.
07-12-2018 | 08:11 PM
#563
Banned
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,445
Likes: 0
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.
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.
You were talking about reserve, where they could call to release you. You miss the call and drive 2 hours to the airport for no reason.
Totally different bull$h!t section.
07-12-2018 | 10:22 PM
#564
Banned
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,132
Likes: 0
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.
07-13-2018 | 10:41 AM
#565
Line Holder
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 86
The interpretation has been set and should there be an issue which is unlikely the grievance committee will have the notes. Truly you guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
There are so many other sections that should cause you to vote no.
07-13-2018 | 11:05 AM
#566
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
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.
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.
Of course the downside of bargaining notes is very few people know what they say since they are not in the body of language.
07-13-2018 | 12:28 PM
#567
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 0
From: B6
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.
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.
I also think it’s safe to say most know who I am. Nothing to hide.
07-14-2018 | 08:21 AM
#568
Thread Starter
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 616
Likes: 4
From: A220 CA
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.
07-14-2018 | 08:27 AM
#569
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,255
Likes: 0
From: fifi whisperer
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.
07-14-2018 | 11:15 AM
#570
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 725
Likes: 1
I hope ur not too impressed by the company giving you a Mint seat. For FDPs to be extended under augmentation provisions you need to be provided a seat with at least 40 degrees of recline. So the only seats in the fleet (currently) would have to be a Mint seat, which would qualify as a class 2 rest facility. Look up the definitions for class 1,2 and 3 rest facilities. I sure hope not one ounce of negotiating capital was expended for that line! I would’ve much rather have seen a nugget in there about a prohibition on domestic augmented operations.
Last edited by Desdi; 07-14-2018 at 11:46 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
