Originally Posted by
Adlerdriver
Scope vice chose to publicly post a BS wet lease scenario with bad math and incorrect conclusions. All while never bothering to run it by his Chair or get anyone to provide a measure of QC on the comm. Intentions are irrelevant in this case. His choices have consequences and they’re coming to fruition. His wet lease us all out of jobs scenario was utter BS and never should have been published. If he was just another APCer that’s one thing. But he wasn’t. He has an obligation to ensure anything that can be tied to his position is more than just an opinion and has basis in actual fact.
The Scope Chair admitted during the first road show the Scope Vice Chair was not allowed in the conversation about the new scope language. I also asked about three different use cases for the company to use the 7000 Block hours (1% of last years flying) to which the Scope Chair said "they didn't consider" those use cases. They only looked back at historical wet lease patterns.
So who should go? Not the Vice. A dramatical change to scope language should have had all hands on deck, however, yet again they (the cabal) hid in the cone of confusion and try to down play a major give back while every other contract in the industry is making gains.
So who should go?