I would say yes. Since a GFB is not allowed to be triggered solely based on frequency or duration of occurrences, in practice this meant CPOs were using them when people were calling out sick next to vacation days, APDs, holidays, etc. These instances often happen to be the most innopportune time to try to get a sick note. Say, on a vacation in a remote/foreign area, maybe with spotty or zero wifi or over the holidays when places are closed. Admittedly, this MOU radically improves some of the logistical issues with GFB, but for extensive travellers like myself who make full use of the flight benefits, I've been in many sick situations where I was praying a GFB wouldn't happen and I can see that still being the case now.

And if this example is too niche, I will posit that the biggest issue of all is just being hassled to get one while ill. It's the last thing I'd want to be doing while sick.

Third, CPOs were using GFBs at different rates. It is well known (or at least was) that if you are a NYC based pilot the likelihood of getting a GFB was higher, and the implication was that the more junior and probationary folk of our ranks were going to be easy targets of harassment. I don't think this is right.

And regarding just the regular 120hr verification, a lot of my points above still stand, although to a lesser degree.