supercruiser
Advanced
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2002
- Messages
- 213
- Reaction score
- 11
It was not rhetorical, I asked you what do you think the arbiter ruled on the case?
It is a real live case that has happened.
Here's a real live case that recently happened, and ALPA lost this past practice grievance: The FAR's have always said that pilots could not work 7 days in a row. And since 1999, the FAA said that also meant that a Reserve pilot could not be scheduled on duty for more than 6 consecutive days, so the 7th day (which happens usually on a transition from 1 month to the next) was on off day, based on legality, and that's been the practice since then.
After LOA 93 went into effect, the company started giving Reserve pilots a different day off other than the 7th one, which penalized some financially from flying on a day when they were actually legal to fly. Anyway, ALPA grieved it and lost, as the arbitrator said circumstances changed, yet the FAR and it's interpretation is exactly the same as it's always been. Seemed like a slam dunk, but not this time.
An arbitrator is political, and is not always a true "neutral." There is no such thing as a slam dunk, past practice or not, and grievance awards that would be very expensive to the company if they lost, almost always are awarded to the company, not the union. If an arbitrator rules for the union too many times, word gets around, and guess what, that arbitrator is not getting work anymore, what a surprise! Sure he awards for the union sometimes, but he knows where his paycheck is really coming from; he's no dummy.
P.S. The pilot contract says that days off will always be a minimum of 2, so now that they're giving off days on days when you're really legal to work, they owe you one more! I think that's a hoot. Of course the company is not doing that, so maybe another grievance will be filed, this one not on past practice though. Who knows how that one will go.