you know they'll get some kind of waiver from ALPA so as not to delay the 76 seaters

Actually 2000 and maybe 1999.

TEN

What is the over/under number of new WB's and date of announcement?

This is just from two pages of this thread. It has to be some kind of hyperbole record.

From these comments you might have forgotten that we're merely discussing the latest violation to our scope clause and what (if anything) our representation will do about it.

Carl

I agree with you 100% Check, but look at the responses here from line pilots. Line pilots are saying things that show great fear of what might happen if we dare to stand up to management. "Think of how much worse it could get if we try to bloody their noses..." etc.

Bottom line is that there is a solid percentage of line pilots that are afraid to risk what they have now in order to gain anything. The irony is that when we look the other way with Scope violations, we do lose what we have now.

Carl

One word FIIGMO.....SCOPE!!

Carl

Well, not all the 717's will be delayed. The first one is stripped and awaiting final paint in MIA.

So...new "Pilot Sick Verification Form" is on the street.

In order for your sick time to be "verified," here's what you must provide some pretty personal health info to the company.

Once filled out, you must send it to the company via email. We have no idea who will be reviewing it, or who will have access to it (personal health information).

This is all absolute BULLSH!T. Don't want to give that info? Well, for your 5th sick call each year, they are contractually permitted to demand that info--and more--via your health records directly from your own doctor.

Another HUGE concession, not to mention an egregious breach of privacy.

None of the wording or requirements to "verify" sickness are contractual. I'm curious to see if ALPA allows this nonsense to stand. I'm guessing they won't make a peep.

But tsquare isn't alone. IMO, there's a pattern you just can't ignore:

1. Management wants something without negotiating for it.
2. So management makes first small assault on the relevant contract section.
3. Management apologists start by defining it as very small and not worth fighting over
4. Management increases the assault and violation.
5. Management apologists say: "well, the precedence is set...we'll fix it next contract."
6. Management apologists say: "stop complaining, you voted for it...by voting for your reps."

Just like the error chain in an accident, the fix here is to break the chain with item 2. No matter how seemingly small, break the chain at step 2. It's not going nuclear, nor bloodying a nose, nor going to defcon 4 or other such blather. It's simply honoring and enforcing a contract. Good contracts make good partnerships. Fear of honoring a contract is a recipe for disrespect from the other side of the partnership.

Carl

Actually I am more Libertarian. I couldn't care less about abortion or other staunch conservative issues. I don't want to pay for your abortion, but if you want one, that is between you, God and your conscience. Anyway, I actually think you and I would have a great time on a layover. As far as the other thing goes....