Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
05-15-2014, 05:07 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: B737 CA
Posts: 1,518
Interesting text from the "McFadden" interpretation, in response to a question of whether an earlier signed declaration of fitness for duty can carry automatic agreement with an extension:
Subsection 117.l9(a) allows an FDP to be extended up to 2 hours beyond the pertinent FDP limit in response to unforeseen operational circumstances that arise prior to takeoff. This extension is subject to a number of limitations, one of which is that the PIC and the certificate holder must both concur with the extension.' A document that the PIC signed before he found out about the need for an extension would not be sufficient to concur with the extension because a person cannot concur with something that he or she does not know about. Instead, the PIC must affirmatively concur with the extension.
This seems to make Delta's current policy that signing includes agreement with extensions illegal, doesn't it?
05-15-2014, 05:10 PM
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
Interesting text from the "McFadden" interpretation, in response to a question of whether an earlier signed declaration of fitness for duty can carry automatic agreement with an extension:
This seems to make Delta's current policy that signing includes agreement with extensions illegal, doesn't it?
This seems to make Delta's current policy that signing includes agreement with extensions illegal, doesn't it?
05-15-2014, 05:11 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 917
The FAA has issued four new legal interpretations in response to independent requests to clarify the application of Part 117 to specific situations. These new interpretations address, among other things: checking of schedules during rest, fitness for duty certification, short-call reserve duty limits, flight-duty period (FDP) extensions, and split-duty assignments.
The McFadden interpretation clarifies that a contractual requirement to check a schedule terminates Part 117 rest at the time the contractual obligation begins, even if the schedule is not actually checked until later. That interpretation also clarifies that a “fitness for duty certification” made prior to learning of the need for an FDP extension is not “sufficient as a concurrence” in an extension because “a person cannot concur with something that he or she does not know about.” The FAA concluded the same rationale applied whether the extension needed was 30 minutes or less, or more than 30 minutes.
The Foltz interpretation provides that the short-call reserve duty limitations in 117.21(c) are not an exception to the FDP limits of 117.13 and 117.17 (Tables B & C). The FAA held that the reserve and FDP limits of both sections apply—and the more stringent limits will control. For example, an unaugmented reserve pilot who starts reserve duty at 0400 and accepts a five-segment FDP assignment beginning at 0530 will have more stringent duty limits under section 117.13 than under the reserve section, 117.21.
In a previous interpretation issued in the context of a pilot who was originally scheduled to fly additional legs, but had those legs canceled, the FAA determined that termination of an FDP requires an affirmative intent for no further aircraft movement which is “lacking when the certificate holder is unsure whether there will be another flight” by the same flightcrew member. The newly issued Anderson interpretation applies the earlier interpretation to a situation in which a pilot has completed all originally scheduled flight segments. The FAA concluded that “if a certificate holder does not have an affirmative intent for no further aircraft movement at the conclusion of a flightcrew member’s last-scheduled segment, then that flightcrew member’s FDP has not ended.”
The Borozenets interpretation provides that split duty may be assigned to pilots on airport standby reserve. The FAA concluded that although airport standby reserve counts as FDP under Part 117, 117.15(c)’s requirement that split-duty rest be scheduled before an FDP starts does not “become pertinent” until a flight assignment is made. The FAA found that so long as a reserve pilot knows prior to the first segment when the split duty rest is to be taken, the intent behind 117.15(c) is met.
The McFadden interpretation clarifies that a contractual requirement to check a schedule terminates Part 117 rest at the time the contractual obligation begins, even if the schedule is not actually checked until later. That interpretation also clarifies that a “fitness for duty certification” made prior to learning of the need for an FDP extension is not “sufficient as a concurrence” in an extension because “a person cannot concur with something that he or she does not know about.” The FAA concluded the same rationale applied whether the extension needed was 30 minutes or less, or more than 30 minutes.
The Foltz interpretation provides that the short-call reserve duty limitations in 117.21(c) are not an exception to the FDP limits of 117.13 and 117.17 (Tables B & C). The FAA held that the reserve and FDP limits of both sections apply—and the more stringent limits will control. For example, an unaugmented reserve pilot who starts reserve duty at 0400 and accepts a five-segment FDP assignment beginning at 0530 will have more stringent duty limits under section 117.13 than under the reserve section, 117.21.
In a previous interpretation issued in the context of a pilot who was originally scheduled to fly additional legs, but had those legs canceled, the FAA determined that termination of an FDP requires an affirmative intent for no further aircraft movement which is “lacking when the certificate holder is unsure whether there will be another flight” by the same flightcrew member. The newly issued Anderson interpretation applies the earlier interpretation to a situation in which a pilot has completed all originally scheduled flight segments. The FAA concluded that “if a certificate holder does not have an affirmative intent for no further aircraft movement at the conclusion of a flightcrew member’s last-scheduled segment, then that flightcrew member’s FDP has not ended.”
The Borozenets interpretation provides that split duty may be assigned to pilots on airport standby reserve. The FAA concluded that although airport standby reserve counts as FDP under Part 117, 117.15(c)’s requirement that split-duty rest be scheduled before an FDP starts does not “become pertinent” until a flight assignment is made. The FAA found that so long as a reserve pilot knows prior to the first segment when the split duty rest is to be taken, the intent behind 117.15(c) is met.
05-15-2014, 05:20 PM
Straight QOL, homie
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Posts: 4,202
The McFadden interpretation clarifies that a contractual requirement to check a schedule terminates Part 117 rest at the time the contractual obligation begins, even if the schedule is not actually checked until later. That interpretation also clarifies that a “fitness for duty certification” made prior to learning of the need for an FDP extension is not “sufficient as a concurrence” in an extension because “a person cannot concur with something that he or she does not know about.” The FAA concluded the same rationale applied whether the extension needed was 30 minutes or less, or more than 30 minutes.
05-15-2014, 05:38 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: A320 Left seat
Posts: 2,591
05-15-2014, 05:39 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
05-15-2014, 05:42 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: DAL FO
Posts: 2,169
05-15-2014, 05:47 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: A320 Left seat
Posts: 2,591
05-15-2014, 06:11 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
The court Delta would file in would be the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Georgia. They wouldn't "kick that issue to another court," whatever that means. That's not how the system works. If either side disagrees (which would be inevitable) with the ruling either party is free to appeal to 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Your conclusory opinion is not grounded in the law or fact. You can speculate what a court might do but to say definitively what they would do is naive and irresponsible.
An injunction is not as easy to get as you and sailing seem to think. It's not something that would happen overnight either. There are factors that the court must consider.
Here's some caselaw for you, straight out of the DAL v. ALPA case in 2000:
"A party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish the following four factors: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a threat of irreparable injury, (3) that its own injury would outweigh the injury to the nonmovant, and (4) that the injunction would not thwart public interest." Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Baker, 949 F.2d 1109, 1110 (11th Cir. 1991)
As another poster already pointed out, DAL could still cover the schedule using short calls and greenslips. The schedule would get flown, it would just be more expensive for them. Hard to argue that injury would be "irreparable" or that such "injury" would outweigh the harm to the pilots of having our PWA rights trashed by memo.
Again, all of this is moot as your union refuses to stand and fight. And, as I've said before, if DAL were successful at getting an injunction, SO WHAT! Neither DALPA nor the 49ers were fined because they did nothing illegal. Completely different from the AA sickout, which was clearly illegal--hence the fine.
Your conclusory opinion is not grounded in the law or fact. You can speculate what a court might do but to say definitively what they would do is naive and irresponsible.
An injunction is not as easy to get as you and sailing seem to think. It's not something that would happen overnight either. There are factors that the court must consider.
Here's some caselaw for you, straight out of the DAL v. ALPA case in 2000:
"A party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish the following four factors: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a threat of irreparable injury, (3) that its own injury would outweigh the injury to the nonmovant, and (4) that the injunction would not thwart public interest." Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Baker, 949 F.2d 1109, 1110 (11th Cir. 1991)
As another poster already pointed out, DAL could still cover the schedule using short calls and greenslips. The schedule would get flown, it would just be more expensive for them. Hard to argue that injury would be "irreparable" or that such "injury" would outweigh the harm to the pilots of having our PWA rights trashed by memo.
Again, all of this is moot as your union refuses to stand and fight. And, as I've said before, if DAL were successful at getting an injunction, SO WHAT! Neither DALPA nor the 49ers were fined because they did nothing illegal. Completely different from the AA sickout, which was clearly illegal--hence the fine.
Hummm. Why does Delta have to file in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Georgia? What if the majority of their cancelled flights are in NYC? Also, are you saying that THAT federal court would handle the contract dispute and SD's memo?
Even if they do, what difference does it make? Are you saying the Court would immediately rule on the issue of interpreting what Delta did and not have to issue an injunction in the face of Delta canceling flights?
So, my opinion isn't based in law? Ok. If you say so, but I'm pretty sure this is the opinion the company would use as the framework for it's case against us. The good stuff begins on page 63. I think it's more pertinent than the case law you posted.
https://crewroom.alpa.org/ual/Deskto...cumentID=44168
I also guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on whether or not Delta would be able to fly their schedule with an increase of long call pilots getting PD's for assigned trips. From what I see, Delta is going to have trouble finding pilots for some flights already - especially for the summer. This is without any more of an increase of reserve pilots getting PD'ed from trips.
Finally, your fall back provision of not caring if Delta is successful in getting an injunction against us is problematic. What do you, mean "…so what?"
As, I said before, we have the high ground. Even though it's taking a while, SD's memo is just as impossible to follow as the company believes our contract is to follow under the new 117 rules. Our pilots will be repaid for the PD's. So, why waste time on a losing cause that has a chance to blow up into something worse?
So, what? So, I want to win. What do you want to do?
Last edited by newKnow; 05-15-2014 at 06:30 PM.
05-15-2014, 06:28 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
