Originally Posted by
Laughing_Jakal
I'm not gonna respond to Rum Runner...I've spent enough time on this
The scenarios that compared block hours vs credit hours do not need historical data....they stand on their own.
Reading TA1 you would see that wetlease during furlough was penalized 2.5 SPF
AL is intimately involved in our negotiation still....it was even in one of the update videos....ask your Reps. The block 2 rep told me so...
You can't say "objectively" those were concessions....that is your opinion.....you don't get to say it's objective just because it's yours....I get that a lot of people feel that way....tht does not make it an objective fact.
Thanks for reading it. It did take a lot of time and effort to not only research itk but also regurgitate it on here
I'm not trying to defend TA1 here...I am just tired of people repeating stuff they hear from others and repeat it so much that they think its true...like the rediculous notion that penalties were dispensed with by TA1 and that Credit hour vs BLk was a giveway....we can't let falsehoods stand if we expect to analyze the next TA
I know you aren't defending the TA. It didnt sound like it to me. I too disagree with much of the rhetoric on the TA scope language. My actualy concern with it was that it didn't nearly go far enough. I wouldve like to have seen interanationl protections for all US states and territories, reduced crew operations language similar to peers, adding deffinitions to phrases used throughtout section 1, addition of 100% transperancy on the movement by air of all fedex revenue, some sort of guidelines for when outsourcing turns into purple tail flying, and that doesnt even touch extraterritorial flying.
Ok, I can concede that newly created student lines, new AVA and vacation selling language that reduces soft time, and reducing R24 to R16 (and also not elminating the possibility of being assinged hotel stannby) may not be objective to some. Honestly, I don't know how but whatever. If scope, retirment, pay rates, and aprp wouldve been better, I could live with those.
But the part that your comparison of credit versus block hours stand on their own, doesn't actually address the concern I wrote. With the change in that language, it will or at least can change managment's behaviour when it comes to decisions on how much wet lease to engage in, and therefore must be taken into consideration. I appreciate that you took the time to model it out. But that was only ONE model and that model doesnt take into consideration possibilities in change in behaviour. All these changes, I feel, should be modeled with worst case scenrios. If there was a model that took that into consideration, like the possibility of perpetual 1% wet leasing, for example, then its not a useful model in my opinioin.
Also, you didn't address the other concern of existing wet leasses continueing during furlough. That was the bigget objective I saw in that language. I applaud the NC's adding it but the language needs to be more iron clad, especailly when it can easily be addressed by inserting language that no wet leasing will be performed during furlough.
Lastly, the quote is a valid concern. I'm not sure you are hesitant to respond to my mention of it simply because someone else mentioned it.
On scope alone, even if I agree 110% with your assesment of ch/bh, scope language is severely lacking and would still garner my No vote.