Sure you can. The first four round dials will never be allowed to be combined in a 757 bid pack. The FAA won't allow it. Those first four airplanes will have to be put into a separate bid pack, and there will be no ability to crossover, ever. Not in Open Time, Volunteer, Draft or Reserve. Ignore them. Plus, they're only going to be here for a short time, until they get modified. They modified Next-Gen 767's is what we have to worry about. These round-dials are the decoy assault to the front lines... keep an eye on your flanks.
I agree wholeheartedly, and my position is that this option is many times worse to our crew force than what the LOA holds (warts and all). This scenario would be an overall loss of pay for the crew force. This is what we don't want; once this happens and the company starts flying the 767 in a combined bidpack with the 757, it will be impossible to separate them out after that.
I disagree. Like my car non-buying experience, above, there comes a certain point where the leverage diminishes. After all negotiating is done and there's a line in the sand that neither party is willing to cross, it's time for Plan "B," and I feel the company's plan "B" is going to be a detriment to the crew force.
Again, I disagree. Let's assume this LOA is not signed, and we go back to the drawing board. Having to now renegotiate 767 flying will just add time to the process. Meanwhile, 767 NG airplanes are showing up, and the company throws them into the 757 bidpack. Now we are negotiating from a point where we have to use capital or leverage to get the 767's moved into a separate bidpack (assuming that what we, as a crew force, want). I think we are worse off not signing this LOA in the long run, both in 767 flying and in contract negotiations. and that's being said from a place of "fear," just business like you said. I'm sure you're trying to play through this game of chess with the company and think a few moves ahead and what their next plays are going to be. If we turn this down, they aren't going to acquiesce and start over with us. That ship has sailed. They are going to proceed with the integration in a way that is the easiest, most cost efficient that they envision. That's never good for us.

 

Why don't they proceed with the integration in a way that is the easiest, most cost efficient that they envision anyway?

What's in this LOA for them?






.

 

according to you? everything, including a pass on giving us a full CBA in the next decade.

 

But my opinion is obviously wrong since it's my opinion.

So, really, what's in it for them? Why are they being so generous to give us all this if they can just do it without our agreement on an LOA and save lots more money?






.

 

By the way ...


Congratulations on the Instructor job!

Don't you think you should get wide-body pay when you're instructing a B-767 simulator event?






.

 

Thanks but you must have me confused with someone else. You have implied more than once that you know who I am and I hate to rell you but ya don't

 

You do realize almost all end up on passover pay, right? Some only 6 months after checkout.

 

Well, for one it is a bargained agreement which is always better for both parties. I would assume relying on an arbitrator or being forced to act on their own is not the method of choice for the Company. There is plenty in this deal for the Company and it seems like a product of good faith bargaining and will be helpful in managing the 767 along with providing efficiency's.

So what exactly are they "giving" us?

 

Tony likes to fight....Except when it came to the FDA LOA.

 

Ouch!! Sad but true !