Originally Posted by
PasserOGas
False choice fallacy. Straw man. Ad hominem. Wow. All in three sentences.
So you are arguing the following:
1. DAL could be forced to clean while non reving in their current contract.
2. That if such a loophole existed, it COULD NOT be closed.
3. If it could be closed that it would take more than one negotiating cycle for it to go away.
Please tell me how little you value yourself again.
This is just a function of writing a decent contract that disallows augmentation by external reference. You could write language in there that anything beyond 14 CFR required certificate duty requires >= 85% ratification by the pilot group unless it is already specifically stated in the contract. There literally is no reason why this can't be done. This is done everyday in every other industry to prevent feature creep. Can you qualify why it couldn't be included in the contract?
This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.