Originally Posted by Roadkill

This analysis you've posted is pretty interesting and seems to cover the options of this decision... but you massively mislead our downside by not extrapolating a legal contract clause into the future, "What if the company decided to take advantage of this wording, could they?".

Your straw man you set up to slay is "15 pax a day", as if that's all this is about on the downside, or COULD EVER BE--that's our choice, 15 pax. Come on, that's not the downside of this at all! It's the contract language POTENTIAL for 1500 pax a day of code shares if the door is inappropriately opened and protections to stop it are removed. You seriously can't be this unable to look towards potential adversity from the PILOTs perspective... I know you certainly can see the downside of the company's potential decisions, you present them to us non-stop.

You do this "set up a bogus strawman and argue against it" style of argument quite often alfa... I like your intellectual slant, but you NEVER PRESENT BOTH POTENTIAL SIDES! You are 20% of the reason I don't trust my union-- you rarely argue the non-company side and play devil's advocate, or start by taking the "pro-pilot cautious company disbelief until proven otherwise and still ensure protection against unanticipated intentional full exploitation of the wording by the company" position-- MY BARGAINING AGENT's obvious and fiduciary position! Every time I read your posts, and I've come to understand you are affiliated with my union somehow, I feel like I'm reading some company-propagandist whose intent is to talk me into whatever they are selling. Seriously every time I read you, I think "Well, that guy sounds quite smart... I sure wish he were working FOR me, instead of for the company, I wonder how they managed to buy him off, maybe they got his kids hostage?" Gosh how I wish you'd apply your mind and intellect to presenting the data from a "pilot's first if there is conflict" perspective, instead of a "company first, and pilot's will probably benefit from that" perspective.

Just my opinion, but you do spend a lot of time here presenting the ALPA case, so I thought you might like to hear a data point from a receptive listener on how your postings come through. No insult intended, truly, I read everything you post... I just never feel you have MY back in mind. Hope I'm wrong and just don't understand enough.