Originally Posted by cadetdrivr

1) Pretty sure the company would first have to actually close the entire IAH domicile to start to meet the threshold of hyprocricy for a 'carve out'. There is already clear contract language that deals with staffing surpluses.

2) We did not pay as a group for the 747 fiasco, other than our honor, as the "grandfathering" actually saved the company a huge amount of money in training expenses as they could short course pilots back into their seats.

In fact, I really wish we'd stop "helping" the company solve their own self-induced problems in an era where the company feels free to speed on many sections of the contract. And that includes the unintended consequences of the company artificially "growing" (cough) IAH during Abbot's reign at CAL and the company's post-merger pre-ISL staffing shenanigans that also resulted in "growth" (cough) in IAH as IAH was used as a superbase to cover flying that would normally have been flown locally by other domiciles. In a twist of irony, I don't recall C171 screaming about the unfairness at the time.