Originally Posted by mikea72580

I continue to be frustrated by the MEC publishing biased information that in some cases is purporting incorrect information to be FACTS.

Example- Scope TAJV

Q: How many jobs are we losing in the drop of compliance?

A: Zero jobs will be lost.

Then, below they make the following statement.

"To quantify, worst case scenario, the Company could decrease about 1 transatlantic roundtrip/day from current levels."

Soo......giving up 1 round trip per day would not result in job loses?

Are we operating drones to Europe on 1 round trip/day? Can anyone help me understand how this Q & A is NOT false.

I'm also wondering why they are comparing our CURRENT level of flying to the new proposed TA language without even a mention that our CURRENT level of flying is out of compliance, TA2012: 48.5% CURRENT: 47.7%.
If the purpose of this FAQ email is to help us understand the difference between the current REQUIRED level and the proposed REQUIRED level, why are they using a baseline of the "Out of Compliance" level of flying for comparison? Does anyone else feel like you are being mislead by that inappropriate comparison?

And to clarify, if 47.7%(current actual level) to 46.5%(proposed required level) = 1.2% change is equavilant to 1 transatlantic round trip/day then wouldn't the current TA2012 REQUIRED level of 48.5% to the 46.5% (proposed level) be closer to a daily loss of 2 transatlantic roundtrips/day?

How can we lose these flights and not experience job losses?

Anyone?