Originally Posted by
TED74
You’re going to need to talk specifics if you’re interested in actual debate, although my hunch is you’ll prefer to speak in meaningless platitudes. What give are you discussing, for what pinky promise?
I’m assuming you have talked to your reps about this deal, and maybe even to the scheduling committee chair in whose judgement this was the least-worst way to deal with the company’s shenanigans. What response did you disagree with, based on what data points?
I don’t see any new emboldened attitude out of management - their anti-pilot arrogance has a long track record and all the old heads repeatedly tell us this is nothing new.
If you need a refresher on the specifics of the settlement, then I recommend reading the multitude of previous threads in which myself and others debated it in detail. In addition, you’ll find what you’re looking for in CA bulletin 23-03.
I have spoken with more than one rep regarding the settlement. Not all were in favor. I am also familiar with Kellett’s position. I found it disappointing that a committee chair with an otherwise great track record chose to support contract concessions as a solution to the backlog of violations that his committee was tasked with enforcing.
The bottom line is that we significantly reduced the company’s trip coverage costs, all while receiving nothing of value in return. At the very least, the concessions should have been valued appropriately and traded for a quid of equal value.
While I agree with you that management has a long track record of anti-pilot arrogance, this is the worst that I’ve personally witnessed during a contract implementation period. I don’t ever recall a blatant refusal to implement certain items that management doesn’t care for, nor any memos with the tone of BP’s, in any of our previous contract cycles.