PolicyWonk

Of a certainty there are many handles on here who are not pilots. One person in particular posts many times under many callsigns. Of a certainty, he/she will not fly under this TA. Some of the posts in this thread are from that person; ambivalent, cavalier, cajoling. A veritable schoolyard bully.

Now consider the positions of someone who doesn't choose an airplane logo, or an aircraft related callsign and let's see what conclusion commends itself.

I have drawn attention to the less obvious aspects of this TA that argue for it being turned down, leaving most of the issues to others, with whom I find broad, though not unanimous, agreement.

The less obvious issues I have chosen to draw attention to include:

Per diem is too low. It should be the higher Government Rates which reset each year.

Multiple sections on deadheading, seats and banks are so poorly worded that any attempt to arbitrate it will fail. We needed someone as pedantic about semantics as Tony or Raptor or CloudSailor looking over this before it was sent our way.

MUV, MUS, CMU and AFB should be eligible for SUB, thus benefitting the pilots. PNP not being adequately defined, but has a priority greater than CMU.

Increase the amount of time you are allowed for intermediate stops while positioning to or from a trip.

Remove the contradiction on train travel limits in different sections.

Remove the ambiguity on SLB in the 23+remainder or 24+remainder months for those who stay till the month they turn 65. Use an example.

Pointing out that two pilots have differing opinions of how a deadheading section of the TA is to be interpreted, thus commending that it be rewritten with language that is not disputed amongst ourselves before it is even ratified.

Suggesting that, but for the obfuscation on A-380/777 payrates, the last TA would not have been ratifiable using 260 as a basis for the A plan. I suggested it would have needed to be 300 then to have a chance at being ratified. If 300 then, surely 330 by now. That would help the company with manning as people would stretch for it, rather than flying at 50c on the dollar in SLB, which many will not do. Many will draw their Disability Bank down to zero and have a partial countering effect to that which the company desires. Go back and read what I wrote.

Substitution wording changed (TAFB window greater than 72 hours) in a way that might cause the removal of a screen that currently has problems but, if fixed, would aid pilots in knowing what their choices are in the most complex portion of SUB and RAT.

I will run out of time before I run out of TA.

In short, the only way to fix many of these issues, some of which are not seemingly important until it is being grieved or arbitrated, is to vote No on this very tentative agreement. Words and concepts need to be rewritten and re-explored.

So, do you care to make another deduction? Am I a garbage guts pilot who will pour an awful lot of coffee down my gullet while working under the proposed Rules of Engagement that have me sufficiently engaged to deal with the perturbations directed at me from a cubicle dweller with multiple signins?

One thing is for sure. I don't work for Oliver Wyman.

And I have a measure of discomfort also with codifying the SLB because it pays 50c on the dollar. I am partially conflicted on this issue, but not completely. I may become sorry for using nuance with you on this issue.

For the sake of being even keeled, I will go off message here. I think there are significant benefits in the fatigue section especially. My commendation to all who worked on it. Obvious care conceptually and attention to detail in the wording. Well done. I read that section and I think PSP.

But since you like to do sleuth work, what is the other significant part of our arrangement with the company that has pilots working for 50c on the dollar? Hint. If one of my suggestions that I listed were enacted, to a degree, it would be lessened; to the benefit of pilots and the company.