Thread: True Retro
View Single Post
Old 01-17-2025 | 06:47 AM
  #35  
JackStraw
Line Holder
 
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 781
Likes: 0
From: Wichita
Default

Originally Posted by Laughing_Jakal
That is a patently false statement...I'm not accusing you of trying to be insincere.....I'm not sure you actually read the section....It's explicitly clear. m Perhaps you ought to re-read section 1 of the TA. When you call me names, I will quote the verbiage here. Penalties imposed on wet-lease beyond a certain threshold were increased significantly.....and that applied for domestic and international...based on total block hours.

Now you may say it's not enough of a penalty....but to say it was removed was false. It removed the penalty for the first 1% or 1.25% depending on hull growth projections, but increased the penalty (SPF) and it doubled the increased penalty very quickly beyond the threshold.

It also penalized wet-lease during furlough, something CBA 2015 does not even address....now I have no issue if you want to say the penalties were insufficient, but it is simply not true that they removed penalties for wet-lease.

This pilot group will not be able to "get together" as long as people from both sides deal in hyperbole and gas-lighting.
Where did I “call you names”? I read the section. It’s the ONLY section I read because once I read section 1 there was no point in reading the rest. Your own bullet points listed section 1 as a give back in the way of “more flexibility to the company”. Let me ask you this, if the company can already “do whatever they want with scope” with the way Section 1 is written now then why the hell the do they need more flexibility? You got GOT, dude.
Reply