Originally Posted by
Bucking Bar
We were right. Why did we concede?
Where in that comm is the fact that ALL Scheduling Chairman, ALL MEC Chairman and ALL Negotiating Committee Chairmen and even the company initially agreed that this was an abuse of 23 M. 7.? It would seem the contract interpretation was fine, for a long time, negotiated, agreed, past practice ... I am not even sure what was disputed.
(for new folks, IA was only ever used within 2 hours which has been the accepted response for Short Call and even then, rarely. Most often operationally critical <30 minutes, created by a misconnect, mechanical or sick - not just a day before sick call or mid-rotation 04:30 show nobody wants to pick up)
Eight hours? Nearly an entire reset period before the duty period? How do multiple calls at 2:40 am promote safety? Why does trip coverage coincide with shift change? Why should trip coverage coincide with anything but the need to cover the trip? At a higher level, doesn't operational integrity and service to our customers matter more than coverage gamesmanship?
What is next? Taking away vacations? Similar language. Why not?
This settlement is the first time I can recall that the effect of a settlement made existing language null. Ie batch sizes and the respective violations. It cute that the language remains and the AWG and reset batch sizes with company concurrence. That is a load of crap and a way to jam this down the pilot group's throats.
This should have gone to MEMRAT. The fact that it didn't and the fact that the MEC even marginally supported this shows how out of touch they are. The reps that supported this need to step down or be recalled. This is pathetic.