SeaPort eliminating per diem
 

SeaPort management announced a new interpretation of our per diem policy that brings cheapness to an entirely new level in the airline industry and will basically eliminate per diem for all pilots.

The per diem policy here has always been below industry average but was at least tolerable. Per diem was a flat $35/day on all trips that exceeded 24 hours away from base. The understanding has always been that "time away from base" was defined as it is at every other airline (duty-on the first day to duty-off the last day).

Today we were informed that "time away from base" does not include any time spent in base during the trip. For example, a pilot duties on for a 2-day trip at 1200 on Day 1 and duties off at 1400 on Day 2. This trip has a 3 hour sit in base in the evening of Day 1. Under the new interpretation, this trip is now under 24 hours "away from base" because of the sit and the crew will not get any per diem.

This policy change was in addition to a new schedule that cuts the most senior pilots down to 12 days off a month and everyone else to 8 days off.

How a 3 hour sit changes anything about our expenses during the rest of the trip is beyond me, and everyone is understandably upset with this new policy. Has anyone else ever seen a per diem policy like this?

Pacific Wings Part II. same cast, new planes.

you mem or pdx based?

Under that interpretation, I would say you should be released from duty (along with all of the other requisite requirements) each time that you come back through your base so that you can go home and eat.

I'm MEM based

There was a legal decision made just yesterday in California dealing with the same situation (e.g. sitting) with ship crew members and the courts ruled against the company, they had to be paid. Not per diem, but what they are paid hourly. It will probably be appealed but if that is lost it will become some sort of precedent, at least in California. Maybe something to keep in mind or hope for elsewhere, or it is something to use as a reference to counter it.

Unfortunately since it's per diem (which isn't required by law to be paid in the first place), it's unlikely that you have any recourse other than to find a better employer.

Funny how they seem to forget that unhappy employees can cost the company so much more than a measly $35/day in per diem. It would take very little to burn (or save) an extra $35 in fuel each flight...

A little less please.

"I don't think you pilots understand the real reason we are changing the policy. We know flying an airplane is a very sedentary job, and many pilots will gain weight during their careers. We, your loving management, in an effort to keep your waistline from growing, we have instituted these changes. That's how much we care about our employees!" ;)

The Metson thing? No, this has no bearing (and only applies in Cali anyway). Like somebody said, per diem is optional. A far as regular pay airlines are careful not to restrict you too much on overnights...if they had rules that you cannot drink or leave the hotel premises then they would end up paying us back pay for hotel time too! Rules about drinking to reasonably comply with FAR restrictions are OK of course.

The airline industry has an established pay system where we only get paid for block time. This has been upheld in court already, probably more than once.

If you have a CBA, there is no legal recourse at all since you agreed to it.

If you do not have a CBA but still use industry-standard rules (ie SKW), you have recourse only if your total duty time is high enough and your pay low enough that you are below minimum wage for the duty time (ie first year FO on ready reserve or a really bad delay day). In that case the state labor board can get you back pay. I think this would work in any state.

You should have another job lined up by the end of May. A lot of opportunities out ther right now.