Originally Posted by
Schwanker
This is ALPA's costing of this. I'm betting Ed and company (who actually build the schedules and know what they intend to do going forward) may have there own costing with much different results. I believe they are extremely good at what they do and their best interests don't align with ours with respect to this.
The CDO's alone are a NO from me.
Language in other areas (augmentation) need to be narrowed down too in an effort to prevent the "we don't think they would do that...." from biting us in the butt. I'm for waiting until the next contract openers and stop this mess from seeing the light of day.
Another excellent point. The company can hand out whatever "current plans" info they want purporting a "win for the pilots". The NC is at a huge disadvantage and would be foolish to think what the company supplies is accurate.
When the company later does a 180, there are always a million reasons to blame the changes on. Guys like Sailing are quick to give the economy a pass due to things "out of the control of the company".
How many times must we be burned by loose language that uses vague terminology that ends up favoring the company? Who the he11 are these top notch attorneys vetting the agreements and why would our MEC/NC agree to such lousy language? Must we keep shooting ourselves in the foot when more tightly written language would put a stop to it? There are far too many negatives in this current TA. Send it back or lets wait for C2015.