All of those things are a safety issue. IMO, this should have been considered by management at the time they got the bright idea to decimate our profession. And, given that they obviously didn't consider it, it should have been pointed out by ALPA in the strongest possible terms. Bottom line, we need people representing us who recognize this safety issue and are not afraid to call a spade a spade. Vote accordingly.

Several years ago (right after we had taken the full 42% pay cut and lost our pension), I had something happen with a flight that I thought illustrated the inconsistency of management's focus on safety. We were taking off on runway 30 at IAD. At 60 knots on the takeoff roll, the right engine failed. We discontinued the takeoff and taxied back to the gate. No huge deal really... if you're going to lose an engine, 60 knots on the takeoff roll on a 10,000' runway is a pretty decent place for it to happen, right? Well, we hadn't been back to the gate for 10 minutes when the phone was ringing... chief pilot's office calling. They wanted to know if we, as a crew, were "okay to continue" flying that day. This is apparently standard procedure when something like that happens. I'm sure that the reason for it is two fold... safety and legal.

This bring up an interesting question. Which is more stressful and has the most potential for distraction going forward? Losing an engine at 60 knots on a 10,000' runway? Or having your pay cut by 42%, losing your pension, and having thousands of your jobs outsourced?

I guess... maybe safety is the #1 priority as long as it doesn't cost much?