You been drinking the blue water again? Might need to change your screen name to "blue water drank"


All deals are bad. No need to see the details.

lots were displaced off the NYC 7ER yes..

Tsquare hasn't been on this board in awhile.:D

Oh yes he has!

The grievance was not about the FAR. It was about the contract limitation in Section 4 on hours of service. We don't grieve FAR's…we grieve violations of our contract. It just so happened that the FAR's also limited hours of service for a pilot.

I don't worry about arbitrator's decisions, but I recognize there is risk when a third party makes a decision to settle a dispute. I don't worry about an engine failure during takeoff, but I prepare for it by having my hand on the throttles - even if it's statistically unlikely.

Had this grievance gone to the System Board, and all we got out of it was a "cease & desist" order by a certain date, or a decision that changed the definition of "EASK" (The 1990 arbitrator's award led to a change of the definition of "pilot" in our contract!), would we be better off?

A cease & desist order I think we actually would be better off with.

That's an interesting discussion point. Is it beneficial to us to force the company into a less profitable marketing or ops position?

I suppose if it gave us leverage to tighten-up the 1.E terms, then maybe so. If it didn't, then we'd be defecating in our own living room.

From a historical perspective, we've gained more from deals with a handshake, then deals at gunpoint. That 3% raise we got as a result of our strike was sweet, though. Not as sweet financially as the JCBA or C2012, but it was a fight - so it was righteous.

Getting rid of B scale as a result of the strike.

A lot of hands are shaken to avoid the guns being drawn in the first place though.

Correct. 3-year phase out.

Company was very profitable. We'd just won (1996) the Snap-Up arbitration. Went on strike with 6 items still open. Clinton sent his counsel to end it. 3 items went to the company. 3 to us.

We showed them!