Originally Posted by iFlyer

Whoa, ER - do you really believe EVERY random number thrown at you? The last TA was obviously sold very hard with dubious numbers to justify it. Even if a costing number comes from our own Union, you probably shouldn't trust it. Why? Because you obviously see they manipulate the number to get the desired response.

Remember FO IOE trip pulls? Union says: "it only affects 2% of FO's", and then they cherry-picked a category during the summer, when they were no longer doing training. It was totally unrealistic and not reflective of how the Company is intent on using that clause. The reality is that trip pulls directly and indirectly after a vast number of FO's (and therefore probably a third of all captains) and create huge complex swirls of secondary and tertiary knock-ons that are difficult to model. So ALPA doesn't. That doesn't mean it won't harm you, they just don't want to put a number on it.

Similarly, these AIP's, and the last TA, use nebulous costing numbers (that we can't see. Why? because it's proprietary), that slant information towards what they want you to think. Does ALPA admin and negotiators want you to second-guess them and make their job difficult by asking for more? No. they just want you to accept what they tell you. After all, they are the experts, right? You can be assured though that all of their "costs" on concessions are only run at face value, with no secondary or tertiary effects thrown in. Those numbers are very big, very scary, and would make you vote "no" immediately. But, understandably, those numbers would also be caveated by such a large "delta" of likelihood, that they are practically useless. And thus, you won't see them.

Which is too bad, because we almost always get sold on the "best case", 'cuz we are mission-oriented optimists, but strangely, despite our profession, ignore "worst case" scenarios when it comes to our own work rules, pay and career progression.

paradoxical pilots...