Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 140 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After flying since XA42 CDT I showed up to work my fourth flight of the day in JFK at XJ30 EDT; 45 minutes prior to departure. I noticed that Maintenance was onboard working on a pressurization issue that the inbound crew had written up. As I was waiting for Maintenance to finish up their work the company had posted that the flight would be delayed by an hour to now depart at XL15L. Rolling delays continued to be posted for a new departure time of XL45L. With the departure time being pushed back to XL45L; myself and the First Officer were approaching our Duty Limit as described in FAR 117 Table B. At XK26L I received a call from Crew Scheduling however my voice mail was full and they were not able to leave a voice mail. At XK33L I called Crew Scheduling back and [a staff member] answered. [The staff member] stated that I would be approaching my FAR 117 Duty Limit and asked if I would take the extension as described in FAR 117.19(a)(1). I told him I would not take the extension as this event had been foreseen as the company had known about the maintenance issue for the past 1.5 hours. He then asked if I was calling fatigue. I stated no as taking the extension would be a violation of FAR 117. He continued to ask if I was calling fatigue or issue a [Pending Investigation]; both of which could result in the loss of pay. I stated that I did not care what he coded the removal of flying. I was not going to knowingly violate an FAR. I hung up and he coded the removed flying with a Pending Investigation. The First Officer then noticed he missed a call from Crew Scheduling and called them back. The First Officer; who had the same duty limitation as myself; stated that crew scheduling removed him from the flight as the company had 'adequate staffing'. Crew Scheduling did not ask him if he was going to take the extension. They did not code his removal and he would be automatically pay protected. This is a clear indication that the company punishes crew members who state that they will not take FAR 117 extensions. It should be noted that myself and the First Officer were both replaced with airport standby reserve pilots.The company has insufficient staffing on the Captain side. The company would rather have crew members take FAR 117 extensions than use airport standby reserve pilots. The company should use all available resources; reserve pilots; before asking if crew members will take an FAR 117 extension. The company should stop with the punitive damages; financial loss. This type of behavior could cause a fatigued crew member to take an extension so as not to lose pay and could potentially cause an accident.




Synopsis: EMB-140 Captain reported that after being informed about approaching the duty limit in FAR 117; declined to accept an extension and was threatened with disciplinary action even though the First Officer was not.