Originally Posted by tennisguru

Take those words you said that I put in bold, then apply them to a different part of the contract. Reroute pay is very complex and has led to pages upon pages on here and FB discussion on the nuances of how it is applied. The company is playing games when it comes to calculations and denying pay claims. Are you saying that in that case too we should go to the table with the company and figure out a way to make it easier for them to handle reroute pay? Greatly expanding CNO usage would be like us agreeing to go back to no pay for reroutes. Both cases deal with hard-fought contract language. Both cases have the company playing shenangians. Both cases would be easier for pilots and the companny to "understand" if we agree to changes. Both cases demand that we as a pilot group hold the line on our PWA and not let the company break our will by intentionally disregarding ANY part of the PWA.

That's the point. The company WANTS us to give up and give in and make their jobs easier. They want us to be frustrated so we just throw up our hands and say to heck with it. They don't want to pay to hire, train, and retain quality crew schedulers. They want to get by on minimal staffing in scheduling. The way to face a rule breaker isn't to adjust the rules so now they're not breaking them. You face a rule breaker by demanding that every part of every rule be followed, and give them consequences when rules are broken (no show trips, removed assignments, extra GS required, etc.). Maybe scheduling will never end up following the PWA completely, but by god I'm going to use every word and provision at my disposal to keep them from trampling me.