Quote:
-Having to call after a RSV assignment for release while they have up to an hour to reassign you something. Thats not even 117 legal from what I can see. I set the brake I'm done FDP-wise.
-Dropped for IOE (ROE obligation) doesn't limit you to your original trip duty footprint nor can you just refuse it anymore.
-Positive contact is spelled out very well and many are concerned it's too vague and no better than now.
-Base fleet transition is now a system wide bid rather than base first.
-Equipment lock language is contradictory.
This is just off the top of my head so far. The language is SUPER WEAK. For three years we've been promised a contract we can be proud of and that raises the bar. I'm sorry, but this TA as it stands is NOT that contract and why I'm a solid NO VOTE.
I understand and fully agree with all of your points. I just find it disingenuous to say this is strictly a pay grab. It isn't. My vote is not a slam dunk or an easy choice. I too am anxious to hear the roadshow.Originally Posted by Vegaspilot
And that doesn't even touch on:-Having to call after a RSV assignment for release while they have up to an hour to reassign you something. Thats not even 117 legal from what I can see. I set the brake I'm done FDP-wise.
-Dropped for IOE (ROE obligation) doesn't limit you to your original trip duty footprint nor can you just refuse it anymore.
-Positive contact is spelled out very well and many are concerned it's too vague and no better than now.
-Base fleet transition is now a system wide bid rather than base first.
-Equipment lock language is contradictory.
This is just off the top of my head so far. The language is SUPER WEAK. For three years we've been promised a contract we can be proud of and that raises the bar. I'm sorry, but this TA as it stands is NOT that contract and why I'm a solid NO VOTE.