Why sadly?

Allowing more large regional jets. 6-4-3-3 pay raises. Being out of compliance on jv scope. Sick verification on good faith basis when there really wasn't a good faith basis. Those are just a few I can think of off the top of my head.

Because CDOs are a cat we don't need to let out of the bag. Sure a few of them go senior, but most will go junior and to reserves. Just like they do at US.

I haven't heard a peep about CDOs though so I kind of doubt it's part of the package.

You are comparing Rosa Parks to a pilot who follows the contract rather than unilateral contract abrogating flight ops memos? Unbelievable. I'm not asking the union to pay the pilots, I'm asking for the company to pay the pilots and the union to defend the contract with all it's resources to bear. You can't violate the contract and neither can the company. Give an inch, and they will take a foot. I personally think they were testing the waters, and are so far happy with the results. It is completely black and white. There is no middle. Contract is a contract. Company changed status quo requirements and so far alpa gets an F.

Very well put!

A 16-18 hour LC could be workable. That would make it a 6-8 hour leash. Of course 8 is way better than 6, so that would make a huge difference. But even the 16 would be 2 steps forward and one step back IMO for LC. We would shorten the long standing 9 hour blackout period to 6-8 hours, which would be a concession, however we'd get a significant increase in LC time to report, which would be a gain. Over all it would be a net gain and QOL improvement.

The other issue is soonest first day report. Right now its noon. It would be the mother of all back room sell outs if we ended up with anything earlier than that, especially if there was in any way the re-establishment through concession of a "last day off schedule check" that gave you duty on a day off so as to facilitate early AM reports on day one. That would be a massive concession even with some little bauble somewhere else, and a huge sign of weakness on our part and a clear sign we're pushovers in negotiations and are about to get steamrolled for C2015. Worse than that, if that was traded away for a little trinket somewhere else, its a sign that we're not only weak but worse: flat out eating our own.

If we keep nothing on day one before noon and LC increases to 16-18 hours, I'd call it a net win and an acceptable outcome. I'd prefer a 19 hour LC as that would preserve the anytime 9 hour blackout we've had for a long time, but the increase in LC that a 16-18 hour system would provide would be acceptable.

This is a reserve issue that requires a reserve solution. This should not be used to fund little wish lists elsewhere until and unless the reserve QOL that are the issue are solved first.

I meant specifically on the lean overs. Can't argue on the others.

Following our RLA negotiated contract as it is written makes someone a "risk-taker" or comparable to Rosa Parks?? Good grief........that is pathetic.


I am surprised the company hasn't tried to make any other changes to our contract via a memo. They were entirely succesful with this 117 reserve change, as exampled by posters here, statements I've heard on the line, dalpa's response (or lack thereof), and the fact that there are roughly only 50-60 people that were PD/CPR'd.

Can you expand on "cat out of the bag".

BTW, former PBS instructor and 17 years at the company who hosed themselves on PBS for june.

^^^^^^^^ This