Originally Posted by
CAVU
Wouldn’t a make up remedy be logical for (4.A.2.b) damages associated with schedules being built below contractual minimums? In other words, credit hours (below 68/85) that were not scheduled and not worked.
Obviously, there is another bucket of damages associated with work actually performed but not compensated (i.e., reserve, pay only, etc). Perhaps that is why reserve days and flex duty days were reduced…
If the arbitrator decides that the company had no standing to reduce our hours and pay over the last 16 months why should we have to work extra over the next 16 months to "catch up"?
Especially since it works to the company's advantage by creating more "overmanning". In other words the could pull trips out of regular lines and put them in open time knowing there are now more greedy $lut$ with make up hours. In essence they could reduce blg over the next 16 months and punish us more. Sound like a fair fix to you? Remember 68/85 is a contractual minimum it should not be the standard.