Originally Posted by TonyC

I agree that it seems fuzzy -- that's because it's not explicit. One thing we've all shouted loud and clear in Negotiating Committee Surveys and polls, etc., is that we want clear, unambiguous language that can't be used against us later. We're sick and tired of having to go to The Company's website to look for the picture of the scales to find the results of the grievance that are used to interpret some paragraph in a way contrary to what we thought the clear language meant.

I would interpret the LOA to mean you get "62 hours of 757 pay, 6 hours of 767 pay, and be leveled for 6 hours of reserve." You don't get leveled for either specific airplane since they're in the same reserve pool.




I hope that's correct.





It could be more clear with an example like Timeoff2fish just presented.

That reminds me, ... EXAMPLES, APPLICATION NOTES ... It looks like we've found a way to get rid of "Intent Language" by calling it something else.






.