I thought they'd be dropped and put in make up bank. Guess not.

25.S.2.c is the reference
Here is the scenario, you have a trip scheduled to layover OAK, OAK, OAK.

It gets revised multiple times, and winds up being, OAK, PHX, LAX, OAK (as a result of an additional duty period being added)

Your simple pilot perspective is that 2 of the layovers changed, thus, qualifying for disruption pay. Companies perspective is that 2 of the layovers were the same, thus, no disruption pay.

Wow, I definitely favor the right side!

Her right, for those of you wondering.

Kronan, there's more than one way to skin a cat, i.e. there is also the possibility of a landing disruption or an extra duty period disruption. Look also in section 4W. First thing is you have to be operating the trip in one of the eligible pay codes listed. Is this a hypothetical?

Extra duty period was paid. Landing disruption not paid....because the company's position is the extra landing occurred because of the extra duty period.

Company says Y=3, but X=1 because 2 of the layovers matched a scheduled location (paying no attention to the 2 that don't)

Just got an email from the union and the union's position is Y=1 (scheduled layover locations) and X=0 (because OAK canx out OAK)

Let me start this with I THINK:

You should get 3+30 Extra Duty Pay (25.V), but not Landing Disruption pay (25.S.2.a.ii.c or 4.Y.2). You should also get Disruption (1+30) for >50% layover change as defined by (25.S.2.c Note 1+2+5) [y=3, x=2, (x/y) > .5]

So the companies position is you had two out of 4 layovers in Oakland or 50%. The matching location only not date or time is the part that they are falling back on.

1. y = number of scheduled layovers when the pairing was awarded/assigned to the pilot.
2. x = number of scheduled layover locations that can not be paired with actual layover locations (matching location only, not date or time).

But definitely worth a grievance to get x and y better defined when an extra duty period is added.

Company’s perspective is Y=3, and X=1. Only 1 of the layover locations can not be matched with an original layover location because of the location only note in parenthesis:

contract clipping:
1. y = number of scheduled layovers when the pairing was awarded/assigned to the pilot.
2. x = number of scheduled layover locations that can not be paired with actual layover locations (matching location only, not date or time).

Company’s position
>We are matching location only, not the date or time of the
> layover.
> > It doesn't matter when the actual layover took place, we are simply determining how many Scheduled layover cities match Actual layover cities.

I agree they say the extra duty period cancels one of the extra layovers PHX or LAX. Not sure if they are right and it has not been grieved before. I think the formula should be Y=3 X=2.

Oops, my above math is incorrect. I misread the notes(small font on bbery).

I think x=1 (or even 0 if more than one scheduled layover can be matched to the same flown layover (3oaks, vs 2oaks)). Then you wouldn't get the layover change pay, just extra duty pay.

Shed-Oak, Oak, Oak(y=3)
Flown-Oak, phx lax, Oak x=1