Originally Posted by Herkflyr

No I am not. But I have always been amused by the guys obsessed over job numbers. We have min staffing numbers in the contract anyway, and since premium pay flying is actually a factor that triggers the staffing requirements (i.e. the more GS, the more pilots required, which will eventually lessen the numbers of GS, so it all balances out in the very long run). But where does it end? Why don't we augment for > 7 hours of flying, or > 6? Why don't we go back to a hard cap, and make it 60 hours, and call anyone flying 61 a wannabe scab?

"This week's crisis is next week's footnote." I've been around for awhile, and most agreements eventually reach between us and the company usually end up fairly positive, with some exceptions (C96, BK LOA 46, which was necessary, and post-BK LOA 51 which was not). ALL TAs that I have ever seen have been accompanied by the almost guaranteed complaints and gnashing of teeth.

Meanwhile we have better pay and work rules than any other legacy carrier, and are trying to do even better. DALPA must have done something right in the past few years, though you would never know it reading some guys.

I'm at least "troubled" by the CDOs. I DO think this should go to memrat just due to the scope of the agreement. I just don't want to burn the place down until I have heard far more details.