Originally Posted by
80ktsClamp
A very small portion of people will yell about anything, and the 9 hour short call is a fine example of that. Using that to validate your view on VB is not good, as that is a poor analogy. VB was specifically negotiated with a no fault pull down, as by definition it is a manning concession. I looked strongly at it when considering my TA2 vote, and that language is what made it possible for it to not be a negative factor.
It was in no way possible for it to be a bad faith pull down, as it was negotiated in good faith to have a no fault pull down at any time. Data, schmata, anyone could see it was a cheap alternative to reduce pilot jobs and cut credit at the benefit of a handful. The company had already started their bad faith antics with intentional scope violations and other crap, so in no way was it a good plan to let them go forward with the VB. No clairvoyance needed... the crap was already going down hill with the company’s behavior.
And “our” behavior had become erratic as well. I can see the chicken and the egg in this scenario.
Staffing concession? You bet. But, it was negotiated in the context of job gains (like increased vacation etc) to partially offset that. If this were some sort of stand alone item proposed today, I might be on your bandwagon, but it was not. It was negotiated for certain quids and then there was an attempt to negotiate it for additional quids. All of this is window dressing as most of the posts circle back around to the fact it was a defensive move (retaliation).
So 80, I understand where you are coming from and can accept that. I just think you let it run at least once, look at the data, add more protections if needed and then if you don’t like it, pull it down. I think our timing and approach were poor.