Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
VQ3 or 4, by chance?
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: Decoupled
Posts: 922
Ah, you youngsters. Back in the day, National Airlines required all flight engineers to hold an A&P. They performed all maintenance at all outlying stations. They thought they were saving money.
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Left seat of a little plane
Posts: 2,431
Hey, as a Herk guy, I can't tell you the number of times I've helped push pallets, tie down vehicles, etc. It all was part of the job, and I wouldn't have done it any other way. When you are on some dirt strip in Somalia trying to get out of there, you don't exactly have the same level of support as at Rhein-Main!
I was an AF Herk guy. And yes, our FEs could get in the trenches, but they never did an engine change on their own. That is how I read the original post.
Hey, as a Herk guy, I can't tell you the number of times I've helped push pallets, tie down vehicles, etc. It all was part of the job, and I wouldn't have done it any other way. When you are on some dirt strip in Somalia trying to get out of there, you don't exactly have the same level of support as at Rhein-Main!
Hey, as a Herk guy, I can't tell you the number of times I've helped push pallets, tie down vehicles, etc. It all was part of the job, and I wouldn't have done it any other way. When you are on some dirt strip in Somalia trying to get out of there, you don't exactly have the same level of support as at Rhein-Main!
Every gawdawful $h1th0le I every went to in the AF, I was either on a herc or a helo. Thanks herc drivers everywhere for helping me see the world.
Happy Easter!
He is risen
This is correct and it happens when the two sides are engaged in resolving an issue. As an example, if someone got bypassed for a GS and they brought it to the attention of the Scheduling Committee within the 120 days, the Scheduling Committee would confirm that the pilot is the one who should have received the GS and they would then add them to the list to engage the company for resolution.
Your example merely involves administrative research to find the correct pilot who should be pay protected. In this case, both sides generally agree to the established criteria for who should get paid.
In the case of the SD memo, the company has repeatedly and unilaterally violated our contract. There is no disagreement in interpretation. It was and is a willful, ongoing, and intentional violation of our contract. They even announced their proclamation 3 weeks ahead of the start date of 117.
This smackdown of the pilot group should've been met with a strong response from DALPA. It was met with a whimper. You want unity? DALPA had a rare opportunity to take a stand that would've had the entire pilot group behind them. They chose not to.
We've already received the "no, we're not paying it" from the company in the form of the SD memo. They told us 3 weeks ahead of time what they were going to do and then they did exactly what they said they would do. It could not be any more clear. An MEC group grievance should've been filed on January 1st. The two sides could still engage but now the clock is at least started. Sure there is uncertainty as to the outcome. That cuts both ways. We can't continue to be afraid to take a stand.
They'll explain that only a small number of long-call pilots utilized the contractual 3-hour acknowledgement and that there simply wasn't much leverage (ironically, this lack of leverage was created by DALPA).
They'll go on to explain that a grievance would've been "risky" and that we could've ended up with a much worse deal.
And that this deal was a substantial win for the pilot group and that the MEC will continue to capitalize on every negotiating opportunity in the future.
Blah, blah, blah...
All that said, the Company has waived the requirement for a last non-fly-day schedule check, as that requirement would interrupt a pilot's rest coming off of his X-day.
That was VRC-50. I did time at VQ4 also...
ii. Duty
1. Collective Bargaining Agreement Requirement
A4A asked whether a requirement in the collective bargaining agreement to check a schedule or calendar, or to acknowledge a trip assignment, is considered duty.
Section 117.3 defines duty as ‘‘any task that a flightcrew member performs as required by the certificate holder * * *’’ Thus, if a certificate holder requires that a flightcrew member check a schedule or calendar, or acknowledge a trip assignment, then the flightcrew member’s compliance with that requirement would be considered duty.
The collective bargaining agreement has no impact on this analysis, as this agreement simply provides the legal basis for the certificate holder to require a flightcrew member to perform certain actions.
Flight Duty Clarification March 5, 2013
I don't think the company "waived the (contractual schedule check) requirement." More accurately, the FAA has stated unequivocally that a schedule check is considered duty. I think it's more accurate to state that the company has agreed to abide by the FAA's interpretation. Agree?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post