Originally Posted by
Noworkallplay
Oh those two whole airplanes that they have been flying for the last 6 months? Not a new lease by the way per the ALPA comm. The ones that creat a penalty payment? How about the max hiring numbers we have had for the past 2 years continuing for the foreseeable future. How about the aircraft order after aircraft order. How about the massive bid after massive bid. How about unheard of career progression never seen before? How about the max AVA/Draft and VBB. Learn your contract first then post facts. The penalty payments make wet leasing only viable if they are left with no other choice. Check back into reality
At the risk (hope) of changing the subject, let me ask you this. If your shower head has a leak but still provides good water pressure during your shower, do you let it leak and develop that mildew streak down your shower wall or do you fix it so that it doesn’t become worse than a stain on the wall?
Originally Posted by
Noworkallplay
You must not be able to read the contract because it clearly spells out that it’s legal and creates a penalty payment. That’s exactly what the communication sent by ALPA clearly stated two days ago.
The whole point is to monetarily make it painful on the company and de-incentivize them from doing it unless they absolutely have to.
Our scope language is the same as it’s been for 25 years and has a track record of working pretty darn well.
Much bigger fish to fry and things to look after than these measly 2 wet leases that are much smaller numbers then we’ve had in years past.
If management is perpetually wet leasing out of peak, can you really say the penalty is a disincentive? Maybe it should be more like UAL’s scope choke? Make it so disincentivizing that they simply don’t exercise that clause? Or at the very least, why wouldn’t you want the penalty to be higher?
Alaska airlines had scope language that probably dated back more than 25 years and now they wished they would’ve done something about it. That’s just not a good argument. It’s an argument management negotiators may make at the table though. It’s only 2 aircraft now but what about in the future?
Originally Posted by
Noworkallplay
The argument in regards to vaccination started with “it would be illegal to require one to be vaccinated”. Then when that myth was debunked with numerous case law examples dating back to the early 1900s they then moved on to “it’s my God-given right to make my choice”. Then you ask him/her if it’s their kids God-given right to not be vaccinated and go to school where vaccinations are required? You bet your kid cannot get vaccinated but they then also cannot go to that school. Sounds similar to this and going to work at a place that would require vaccination. If you don’t want to get it that’s fine don’t get it but if your employer requires it then you no longer have a job. Have fun finding a new job. See ya!!!! Then have fun wasting thousands of dollars on an attorney more than happy to take your money to have the case thrown out like numerous cases are currently throughout the country.
This depends on each state or even school district depending on the state. For example, until relatively recently, in California, your kids didn’t have to be vaccinated. But if there was an outbreak of whatever they were vaccinated, they would be required to stay home. Now they’ve closed those loopholes.