I get fatigued ripping all the CCO printouts off the printer.

 

I don't think you even have to say you're "fatigued." Simply say you chose not extend beyond the CCO that came off the printer. It's a harassment factor the company has inserted to get the pay you're owed because they didn't like being told they had to get the pilot's permission to extend. They hate being told what they can and can't do.

If on reserve and you've got no chance of breaking guarantee you don't even have to file an FSAP since it'll make no difference in your pay.

BTW, It's a misuse of the FSAP system IMO. FSAP is meant to be for safety issues and they're using it to get us to grovel for pay. I wonder what the FAA rep on the FRC thinks of reviewing FSAPs for pay.

 

My understanding is that if you don't agree to a 30 minute extension you need to file an FSAP. An refusal to fly beyond that extention requires no paperwork.

 

Yup.

AND....the </= 30 minute extension refusal will result in the pay for the "lost trip" being subtracted from your sick bank until the committee reviews the FSAP.

To date every </= 30 minute FSAP report has been classified as a company paid fatigue event and the sick bank re-instated but the threat remains as well as the busy work. Not to mention the hassle of verifying that the pay (and sick bank) is all settled correctly.

Y'all be safe out there......or something.

 

If you don't extend 30 minutes beyond what comes out on the printer, then you need to file a FSAP. That's my point, it's jacked up, but true. I see what you are saying about the company in regard to pay, but according to ALPA the 30 minute deal is actually FAA driven. And, in this regard the FSAP is safety related...but it also has pay implications. The FSAP was accepted in my case and no pay lost.

 

Sorry, I wasn't jumping on you. I had a perfectly good unused self-righteous speech saved up and I just decided to use it.

The 30-minute extension approval is the FAA's ruling. An FSAP is not required by the FAA. We've done nothing wrong and they don't need to be told something they already know. But it is required by the company in order get paid. If they want safety data points for refusals of less than 30 minutes that's simple to pull from scheduling records, they don't need our FSAPs for it. It's harassment pure and simple (perhaps because the FAA ruling came in response to a question from John McFadden, Captain, United Airlines. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...rpretation.pdf)

I've refused the extensions and not filed FSAPs because there weren't pay issues. No one cared. Just out of curiosity though, next time I refuse an extension I will file an FSAP that simply says I was not fatigued but simply chose not to continue working past the FAR 117 table. Will be interesting to see if they respond any differently than me saying I was fatigued.

 

I have had a few extension opportunities this year. A couple times we extended, a couple we didn't.

The over riding issue is how we felt or expected to feel, followed by "what about those people in back, who are going to miss their daughter's wedding, or that job interview, or that last chat with grandma at her hospital bed.

Only in one case was pay offered- which tells me that me and my crew cared more about our passengers than the company. Well, I already knew that!

I was told by someone who would know that the reason the pay issue has changed was because the FAA was concerned pilots would extend based on pay issues first, rather than their fatigue levels.

I not sure I agree with that assessment.

 

March 30, 2015 MEC Update has information regarding the MEC voting down the LOA that would have replaced the MOU covering extensions. The MOU was rescinded by ALPA. The negotiating committee and company negotiated an agreement that guaranteed either 2.5 or 5.0. The 2.5 was active at the first minute of extension versus the MOU that required the 30 minutes of free time.

The MEC voted down the LOA. The reasons my reps gave for not voting yes were the number of pay claims on going. So instead of giving us more options for higher pay and to continue the operation, my LEC decided the added work was too much for the company I suppose.

This reminds me of some of the other great ALPA decisions that has taken money out of my pocket over the years.... takes me back to the stove pipe and the cessation of trip trading decisions.

I have asked my friends at AA and DL and they said they get nothing for extensions and the expectation is that they will extend.

 

There was (is) a serious problem with the company not actually paying the lower priced extensions that were already in the UPA.

Why would anybody expect anything different with the LOA without some other changes?

Note the significant personnel changes the company made in Labor Strategy and Pilot Contract Compliance once the MEC voted down the LOA. Coincidence?

 

I plan to do the same with the addition of "This FSAP is a company required harassment policy required for pay. Had I chosen to waive my FAR 117 duty limit and put my self and crew in a possible fatigue situation that led to mistakes, those could possibly treated as willful violations and not covered by the FSAP program. Safety in all things at all times, at least that's what the company told me as a new hire. Now add the caviat, unless it costs too much."