Originally Posted by
272922
Except there's a very clear difference between law and the CBA. The underlying legal principle involved is "fly now, grieve later." The underlying philosophy of the RLA is to keep commerce moving. Codifying the ability of an employee to bring a halt to commerce simply by question provisions of the contract is pretty antithetical to that.
While you and I also both agree that the CP was wrong, it's also within the company's prerogative to discipline should they feel the need. So instead of a possible termination and subsequent grievance for insubordination, we instead have a grievance for a contract violation. In the first case the pilots involved are without an income until settlement of the grievance, in the latter case the pilots can continue to earn an income and reap the benefits of a settlement later.
I'm not saying the company would absolutely terminate in an above hypothetical case (they probably wouldn't), but what I am saying is that TR advocated a conservative course of action that could set the pilot group up for a bigger win later on.
Are you kidding me? Fly now grieve it later is a crock of ****. Tell you what, why don't we just throw the contract away since the company does not need to follow it? Our union has zero backbone. Another example is calling out fatigued. Nowhere in my contract does it say that I have to be included in a conference call with the CP when doing so. But now that is the norm. Or when I do not accept a two hour extension I have to call out fatigued. FAR 117 says nothing of the sort. And I do not care what some FAA ******* interpretation says, that is not what the FAR states. So letting the company continue to not honor the contract is bull****. But you go ahead and fly I t now and grieve it later.