What the other user is talking about was called the CAT (Contract Answer Team). It was going to be made up of pilot volunteers. The number needed was closer to 75 pilots. If we wanted to add a staff member, with all the extra dues we have been paying, that should be a slam dunk. How about a DART on that!

I agree its a great idea. So who is volunteering? Same problem as 6 years ago. Are many of the notorious posters of the Internet or JetFlyers going to volunteer? No its much easier to complain then do the work. I would volunteer again if they stood it up. I bet we couldn’t even get 15-20 to volunteer. Luckily we do have people who volunteer to answer the DARTs. Im sure they get swamped and get to spend many layovers and nights/weekends at home actually doing something. All for no pay and ungrateful complainers on the Internet. I bet those jobs are so fun…….

I signed up for it as well. It had at least 20 people. But the system was flawed. It was supposed to answer pilots’ questions only with references to the contract clause dealing with such question. It didn’t allow for actual advice and or guidance. They expressly advices against giving advice. At my previous airline that had about 3,000 pilots, five of them were trained to actually answer the questions with prior practice and precedence from contract language and negotiating notes, etc 24/7/365. It was done via email and was very efficient because the volunteers were dedicated and knew the contract inside and out. They were even empowered to contract their crew scheduling or management contacts to try to resolve issues in real time. It was very successful with very few complaints.

So let’s not make excuses. The idea is good, it’s wanted, and it’s necessary for contract enforcement and QOL. The implementation just needs to be better which requires training enough people and empowering them to actually be able to affect change, in real time (24/7/365).

Would the company (labor relations attorneys) allow these people to contact people at the company and affect change immediately? Im very doubtful on that. Isn’t that why we have duty officers? I find it very hard to believe the company would allow some contract answer team person to call over to Crew Scheduling and have them start changing stuff if they don’t think they are doing something wrong. Im assuming the previous place you had this at was a regional? If so this place is a whole different game. This company is ran by attorneys at every level. Even the emails I have sent to the chief pilot in regards to the contract have been deferred to the lawyers. None of them have any power unless the lawyers say its ok.

….and with anything that involves lawyers and potentially litigious users we must have perfectly trained individuals who know to answer as little as possible lest the say something slightly wrong. Perfect is the enemy of good. Lawyers the enemy of reasonable man.

Yeh the second you say “do this or do that” you are now liable for a lawsuit if that pilot doesn’t have the outcome they wanted. So now we have pilots litigation against pilots. That is a slippery slop once you start telling them what to do. So I completely understand why they would’ve said only reference the contract. I bet even those volunteers don’t want that liability. This is why attorneys and Contract Enforcement people need to do the actual telling of what to do. Remember many of those suggestions you would give to pilots could have legal ramifications.

No good deed goes un punished.

From personal experience about 2 years ago, I have had contract enforcement contact scheduling with my issue. Whoever they contacted at scheduling agreed and made the change within minutes to make things right. Luckily it was between 9-5 M-F.

These volunteers weren’t just any pilot. They typically were members of the scheduling and contract enforcement committee or someone who had been in some position like that, all of which worked with crew scheduling supervisors and managers of the equivalent of our DOs. It was based on relationships, trust, and respect these people developed by having worked together over the years.

This place is no different than any other place. We are all humans that interact with each other. Look, you speak mightily of educating pilots you fly with, which is good. It’s how attitudes are changed over a long period of time. This would be no different. It’s never easy to change culture but it always takes a long time. I’m not saying it’s easy or even possible. But the previous way certainly wasn’t going to work to change anything in a way that helps pilots.


The litigation concern is no different if a contract Enforcement person gives this bad advice than if it came from a pilot. It’s still a pilot suing the pilot’s representative, the MEC, ie pilot versus pilot. So that’s not a valid concern. If this was true then all answers from contract enforcement to contract questions would simply be a reference to chapter and paragraph in the contract.



Look, I get it. You and I fundamentally disagree because of our previous experiences. All I’m saying that this idea has worked. It’s not impossible to work because it doesn’t violate any laws of physics. And we also know that just giving contract references doesn’t work either. And we also know that ordinary people are trained to give actual contract answers. So it can work. We just need to trading and empower pilots to be those people who can answer contract questions 24/7/365.

Our MEC hires people “off the street” with no previous experience as a pilot, attorney, or with FedEx in any way and train them to officially answer our contract questions. So it’s obviously not impossible.

DART provides better tracking and members of the MEC are also copied on it. More eyes on the issue which provides better resolution. To the submitter who cares if it's a DART or an email?
Much bigger fish to fry and you know this, not sure why you're complaining but that is your natural state.

Response times are frustrating. A 24/7 hotline staffed with legal muscle is probably not something this pilot group is willing to pay for.