I was responding to your post about the MEC (co-company as you call them) negotiating a cost-neutral deal. If you can show YOUR math that ADG of 5:15 and a 14 hour reroute rule DOESN'T increase the company's cost, then I'm all ears...

Line item accounting wasn't shown in open session at the meeting - which you knew. I wasn't able to see the math, line by line, but when the opened the room back up the NC and reps all openly used the figures +$38M and +137 jobs.

If you have a basis for your implied assertion that the NC/MEC is lying to us then I suggest you dig a little further with your C20 reps. I'm all for exposing a conspiracy - let us know what you find out. :cool:

I just checked with my rep, and he confirmed that it's only for the first day of Reserve following an X-day/hard day off. It's also covered in the Negotiator's Notepad that they put out yesterday. Here's the blurb covering it from the NN (emphasis mine):

A pilot may notify Crew Scheduling on his first on call day that he will assume responsibility for the two hours with the expectation of being able to report for duty upon arrival.

...and the ability to get released 2 hours early w/scheds' concurrence :mad:

You would think with "constructive engagement" we would be able to get that fixed. As long as you are able to walk straight over to the gate and depart, they should not care if you are flying in during that first two hours of short call. There's no reason it should not apply to any on-call day.

Definitely something to put back on the list for the next engagement. I don't commute anymore, and really hope I never have to commute to reserve again. That was a really useful tool for a RES commuter, for whom every hour counts.

It is offset IMO for the first day with the 1000 earliest start-time (which would allow the 2 hour commute.) This is an improvement over the old 0500 earliest start time. For my previous commute, that would have been a huge improvement. However, I would like to see us get the 2 hour commute to SC back for any day even though it hopefully won't ever affect me again...

Btw, I think we were sitting right next to each other at the meeting - and hanging out in the hall for hours on end. Nice meeting you in person.

Yes!

Why would there be any need to hide those costing numbers now? Especially in this age of "transparency" at DALPA. :rolleyes:

So we had it...and then we conceded it...and now we'll have to give something up to get it back.

Brilliant.

Whoa! Where is this written? I didn't see this. Just skimmed the LOA again and still didn't see this.

My statement was one of questioning whether this is yet another cost neutral engagement. Without having the actual data, it certainly looks to me like we gave something for everything we got in a time of sustained record profits. You responded to me by saying this:

Certainly sounded like you were stating facts, so I asked for documentation. You can't show it. Neither can I. Thus my question still stands.

Carl

That is gone too? Haven't heard that change discussed at all