Originally Posted by
FlameNSky
They (the company) can't. Those who suggest otherwise are just talking out of their asses. One can have confidence in the flow for two reasons. 1) Whatever critical staffing situation that, as inferred, would motivate violation that contractual provision, would immediately cause the staffing situation to worsen. There are many other incentive actions that can be taken prior to that point that would be more effective and cost less without having such a negative effect on recruitment and retention. 2) ALPA has won every grievance concerning the Letter 3/Flow creating a significant past precedence on the subject. In other words, the restriction of flow would have a minor and short lived significance on envoy staffing.
Claims to that effect have no legal or logical (business) sense to support it. They are simply saying what they hope will happen without any logical argument to support it.
Your claim of ALPA winning all Letter 3 grievances in incorrect. They lost at least one, several were split awards and at least one more was filed by AMR. Your claim of precedent is equally incorrect as the grievances for the most part were in specific relation to the agreement itself and to compare the specifics of Letter 3 to the protected pilot agreement is comparing apples to oranges.
Welcome to the logical argument bankruptcy club in trying to support your arguments.
