I don't see the point about a 2 year bridge deal regarding the new FTDT because the rules are what they are and there is very little relief we could give the company to help offset them even if we were in the mood to give up work rules. The only place I see is the 9 hour block unaugmented stuff, but if it remains true that time is a hard non waiveable 9 hours from throttle up of each segment like we're told it is, relief of our current 8 hour limit wouldn't amount to very much of anything and certainly not enough to warrant 2 years to think about it. IOW what is the incentive for the company for the bridge deal WRT the new FTDT's?
The incentive is that you can bet that "Airlines for America" (formerly the ATA) is going to put a full-court-press tsumani-like campaign against the FAA to go back to "legal to start, legal to finish" versus the hard 9-hour rule. Whether that will be implemented, or the current "hard" 9 hour rule remains the law of the land will make a huge difference in how management staffs and schedules pilots.
I for one would be in favor of a two-year "bridge"-style extension (with proper incentives and positive changes to the contract of course) within the template of the current FARs, to expire right about the time the new FARs take effect. I think that might actually be more effective for us in the long run.