2015 if you vote NO RA will take punitive fleet measures...be happy C2012 prevents further punitive measures that the new TA would allow to happen..

2018 under the new TA open season on punitive measures

If you Vote NO in 2018 Management can reduce the size of aircraft to Europe, Management can put RJs on hub to hub routes and longer ranges, Management can pressure all the pilots calling in sick.

Actually they would not even have to wait to 2018, what if they want a LOA in the interim. All the punitive measures in this TA could be applied a soon as it's signed. PS will be 100% gone next contract or be prepared to be punished. How long will those pay rates last when so much can be used against the pilots.

This TA will guarantee that all future contracts will be yes votes; hence, "labor risk is off the table".

The latest letter from RA is proof they will do what they can to get a YES vote.

This letter from RA means more than ever we need to keep C2012.

 

Sounds like regional whipsawing.

 

I think a little editing might be in order, because you're not making any sense.

 

A lot of editing!

 

It's the RJ nightmare all over again with JVs.

19 seats and that's it!!

36 seats. We mean it.

44 seats! Line in the sand.

50 seats.

69 seats.

76 seats. ALPA isn't a wet noodle!

JV death by a thousand cuts.

Don't worry you can trust Frank, he's our friend.

 

Sailing

Putting management instantly in compliance for a nickel of per diem is a master stroke.

It won't affect the Shadow MEC, so it's all good.

 

So give me a honest comparison with the current fleet plan of which overall section 1 you would prefer in 3 to 4 years. I will take the TA any day. Our average aircraft size is going up. AF/KLM is going down. Each Alitalia flight that becomes a Middle East code share must be dropped from Skyteam that day. That combined with the increase in size will easily bring the company into compliance with the current scope for the next cycle without adding a single flight. We will have a much more enforceable measurement period in the new agreement. The 1.81 block hour ratio is huge on the domestic side.
There is a lot wrong with the TA. Scope is not the issue.

 

Food for thought. If the company foresees itself being in compliance soon with the current contract language, why are they demanding new language? Come on now...

Also lets not forget this is the precursor to a Pacific JV. Precedent setting in a contract will get them this provision on the Asia side very easily. No no no no no no no. For the love of .... No

 

Perhaps because we demanded a new and more enforceable compliance period. The company did not demand the switch from EASK. It evolved over the course of negotiations as a mutual concept.

 

So says you. Where do you get this nonsense?

Did your handlers in the fourth floor spin that yarn?