Sorry for the late response. I don’t believe that you need to trade out items for some things. For instance, for a person stuck out an out base I can totally see rolling them into another day to fix issues (there is a logic to the necessity), but, in base this is dumb, there is no logic. Getting rolled into a day off, when there are RSV’s for that reason, in a hub is bad business. So my initial argument would be zero ability to roll you into a day off, with the willingness to compromise to an out base only possibility.

Creating a hard calculus for setting the gline, even if it is base dependent, is appropriate and something we should’ve argued for, again, without having to trade away something. We are directly paying for scheduling’s inability to forecast high use days, increased sick calls, and any other issues that arise—they have the data (tons of historical data), a scheduling unit lives on historical data. Not doing this is lazy, bad management, and, in no way requires a ‘trade-off’ by us because the onus has always lay with scheduling.

There’s other stuff in the TA that rubs me wrong but these were the two things that I wasn’t willing to give in on. Things I believe, didn’t require a trade-off for something else because they should never have existed in the first place, the pilot group should never have allowed to occur.

That’s my answer, it’s mine, you don’t have to agree or disagree, it’s up to you. I’m a no on this TA. Again, if I’m wrong about my reading of the TA and they can’t roll you into days off without your agreement or they have it written somewhere how they will calculate RSV’s and the gline, then please educate me. I’d be more than happy to learn.