Originally Posted by UncleSam

This is one of those very convoluted situations. Basically, if they put you on "rest" and don't assign anything in advance of starting "rest", they can't assign you anything that begins before the end of "rest" plus 5 hours. They can give you a trip or assign SC before "rest" starts and have the report immediately after the "rest". If they wait to give you an assignment within 9 hours of the end of "rest", then the report/start must be 12 hrs from the time of the assignment.

Several different contract sections control this and the schedulers don't do a very good job of abiding by it because it is confusing. If you are on "rest" and they call you with any assignment, best to wait until near the end of "rest" or after to call and ask what they are doing. Think of "rest" as your last X day and adjust the times according to when your rest ends. If they start talking about "add-on rest", call the ALPA office and ask for someone in scheduling.

This is my understanding of this issue and I am not a contract guru.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

And in fairness to a unbiased opinion, I have requested that all of the mods, admins and owners chime in on the subject. I do know of one mod that removes all political posts, but that is one of 12.

When they get done with their debate, all, none or some of these posts will be removed. (Mine included) Have to admit that I was just trying to make a point prior to my morning coffee. Scheduling called and I had not gone back to sleep.

Originally Posted by Scoop

Contrails,

I hate outsourcing as much as the next guy (and twice as much as the guy next to him) but wouldn't the aircraft also have the FAR fuel minimums in it when it shows up as a DAL connection flight? Theoretically. unless it was operated under other than part 121, you would think it would all average out in the long run - of course I could be missing something here - only halfway through my first cup of coffee. I guess if they were stingy on contingency fuel there might be a difference over the long run.

Scoop

Originally Posted by tsquare

Is that like a Star Treky kind of thing? Kind of like the Q continuum? Should we start calling you "Q"?

Originally Posted by gloopy

He actually brings up a good point. Of course it would arrive with legal fuel. He is saying the outbound leg on behalf of a mainline will be "fat fueled" so that it lands at its next destination with more than legal fuel which was paid for by the mainline but will be burned doing someone else's flying. There is already some sneaky DH-ing going on by "air group" portfolios who fly for everyone. Stealing a few hundred pounds here or a thousand pounds there is a very real possibility. The shell game of multi airline outsourcing ACMI is not only bad for pilots at every level its one of the most poorly thought out MBA classroom brainchildren in the industry.

Originally Posted by Reroute

Not sure who is ferrying the aircraft, but here are the projected deliveries as of October.

9 from China Eastern Apr-Jul 2011
8 from SAS Sep-Dec 2011
13 from China Southern Jan-May 2012

Originally Posted by GunshipGuy

I can attest to having a WSJ news article (non-opinion piece) removed from this board that was free of commentary. Just saying.

Originally Posted by chuck416

I share your sense of frustration. While I commend the moderators on their desire to keep this board from character bashing, occasionally that type post is well place here on this forum. Sometimes a politician needs to be called out, or exposed, for what he is, or represents. Again, I commend the moderators for their goal of encouraging debate here, once in a while their subjective review (by nature) may lead to them taking something down that might not should've been. I give you another +1....Just saying....