|
Originally Posted by CincoDeMayo
(Post 3391890)
You fought it through the NCC process? Did they file a formal grievance or that was their “answer” after meeting with the company for your NCC?
I’ll let y’all come to your own conclusions on what may be a better option than using the commuter clause if you can’t make it in. |
Originally Posted by mavsfflife
(Post 3391906)
Fought it initially with the CP and union, then through the NCC process. Received a call from the grievance chair that it was unfortunately how they have been interpreting the contract now. If you look in the commuter policy section now, it’s buried in there. I’d never had it used on me though.
I’ll let y’all come to your own conclusions on what may be a better option than using the commuter clause if you can’t make it in. |
Originally Posted by mavsfflife
(Post 3391906)
Fought it initially with the CP and union, then through the NCC process. Received a call from the grievance chair that it was unfortunately how they have been interpreting the contract now. If you look in the commuter policy section now, it’s buried in there. I’d never had it used on me though.
I’ll let y’all come to your own conclusions on what may be a better option than using the commuter clause if you can’t make it in. |
What does this buried language say? Quoted would be good. We had a similar issue at f9 but it’s to long of a discussion to get into and there’s now an loa. They can’t add flying and I’m fairly sure rdp but you have to finish above 60/70 if you forgo the pay. There’s no contractual mechanism to add flying outside reassignment. Reassignment is separated out language for a reason but I don’t know what this buried language in your contract says?
|
Originally Posted by fcoolaiddrinker
(Post 3392023)
What does this buried language say? Quoted would be good. We had a similar issue at f9 but it’s to long of a discussion to get into and there’s now an loa. They can’t add flying and I’m fairly sure rdp but you have to finish above 60/70 if you forgo the pay. There’s no contractual mechanism to add flying outside reassignment.
same number of calendar days of his original missed trip pairing (e.g., a pilot who misses a scheduled trip pairing of three calendar days may be assigned to no more than three calendar reserve duty days)." Nothing hidden, but does not specifically forbid the adding of days outside the original trip foot print. |
Originally Posted by symbian simian
(Post 3392030)
"b. Assign the pilot to reserve duty for no more than the
same number of calendar days of his original missed trip pairing (e.g., a pilot who misses a scheduled trip pairing of three calendar days may be assigned to no more than three calendar reserve duty days)." Nothing hidden, but does not specifically forbid the adding of days outside the original trip foot print. That sounds like intent is a lineholder can be assigned res. How do you miss a scheduled trip as a res? An argument could be made it doesn’t apply to res. Past practice/disputes would help with that argument but it might not be winnable in arbitration. Hard to say. |
Originally Posted by fcoolaiddrinker
(Post 3392033)
That sounds like intent is a lineholder can be assigned res. How do you miss a scheduled trip as a res? An argument could be made it doesn’t apply to res. Past practice would help with that argument but it might not be winnable in arbitration. Hard to say.
|
Originally Posted by fcoolaiddrinker
(Post 3392033)
That sounds like intent is a lineholder can be assigned res. How do you miss a scheduled trip as a res? An argument could be made it doesn’t apply to res. Past practice would help with that argument but it might not be winnable in arbitration. Hard to say.
However, the point we were talking about was if the reserve days had to be within the original trip foot print, and apparently they don't. I do not like that at all. |
Originally Posted by symbian simian
(Post 3392044)
Yes, a line holder can be placed on reserve due to missing a trip commuting (don't necessarily have an issue with that, because at least you get pay). A long call reserve assigned a trip could use the same clause, and get reassigned to short call too (probably). As a short call you really can't use the commute policy.
However, the point we were talking about was if the reserve days had to be within the original trip foot print, and apparently they don't. I do not like that at all. |
Originally Posted by fcoolaiddrinker
(Post 3392050)
right which is why it’s probably worth making the argument. Worst case get an loa. I’m sure allowing a res to be stuck anywhere in a bid period was not discussed in negotiations. Nobody would agree to that scenario.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:33 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands