Originally Posted by
Tee1Up
The only way I see "checking in at the start of a SC" is by physically checking in at the airport.
That would be a different thing altogether. They can have that too, if they pay for it. I'd give them that, for even fewer SC's a month, plus a hard pay and credit (5:15 works) for a reduced 6 hour sit. Anything less and I'm not interested.
What I was thinking about is likely a form of something DALPA is already predisposed to give them for free in the future anyway. Location information based of a cellular tablet or whatever, etc. So at start of SC, you log in and it verifies you're a reasonable distance away. What determines that? The same thing that already does. At the very least, 125 miles from the airport reference point is the worst they could ever hold us to.
To even allow that though, I'd want a reduction in the monthly max of SC's. The current 7/6 can go to 6/5. If they want positive airport checkin, in addition to the hard pay and credit, 4/3 would be appropriate IMO for max SC's a month, in addition to the added pay and credit for each one sat. If they won't accept that, then they don't get the other side of that equation. Oh well.
I also don't see the number of SC's being reduced.
Then they don't get anything and we remain as is.
Isn't that a formula that is already in the contract?
Yes, and if they want something from us (location verification at start of SC) then they can pay for it by reducing monthly SC's. If not, then they don't need it that bad.
I am just adamantly against any sort of "tracking mechanism" for SC and certainly against having to physically go to the airport to "check in" for SC.
Tracking is coming regardless, unless the line swine rise up and pre-empt it. Same as further scope relief. I generally lean towards #resist things like that, but if we are going to entertain them, then we dang well better get something superior in gains for it, preferably that offsets the same area of inconvenience for a net gain to that area (just like the SC example).
Despite my rigorous defense of the victims of the big data dump guilty because of lack of retroactive proof nonsense, I know some are absolutely guilty of that kind of stuff and it ticks me off too. I want them caught and punished (just not in that manner because that manner is unacceptable). So I'm receptive to potentially workable solutions that put a stop to the abuse while giving us something in return for the added inconvenience and "addressing of their concern". Win-win if we do it right. If the company isn't interested in a fair and workable solution, then it must not be the big of an issue for them.