Originally Posted by eaglefly

Yup.

I think they are allowing management to define the interpretation of that LOA unanswered and that's how managements interpretations become precedent. If they don't know how many AA intends to hire, how can the "50%" requirement be met at any given point in time ? The idea that "truing up" AKA "I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" at some later date meets such a requirement is absurd, also considering the value of said transfer to AA is diluted due to loss of seniority if it occurs later at some mythical point. The claim of "disruption" is preposterous considering it is only 5 pilots combined with Envoy's grotesque over staffing (which this BTW claims near 50% reserve coverage as I previously stated, but was supposedly corrected to "the high 20's") and to simply put out another impotent blast to the pilots amounting to a hat in hand "aw shucks, won't you please treat us better and honor your contract" statement should be an embarrassment to those pilots represented by this latest group of flaccid enablers.

Again, in referencing Envoy's own advertisement on this forum stating, "...with Envoy guaranteed to make up half of all of American's new-hire classes.". One really has to ask that if they are representing that definition to the pilot world, why is Envoy ALPA not requiring them to defend that in a grievance hearing ?