Leave that unedited. I just blew beer out of my nose. The millennials will have to google it.

Hint: CVG child.

I went to high school with her, them's store bought...also, she had a gap in her teeth and wore saddle shoes.

Sounds like someone is from the Chicago area. :D

Snot nose from Kenilworth.

Prior to the TA, there were some posts about RA speaking at a LCA meeting or something similar. The poster noted that he was all unglued about certain aspects of our contract that allowed pilots to sit at home and be paid. He viewed it as a management deficiency.

Fast forward to the TA, the problem has been solved from a management perspective. The fact that it abrogates the seniority of all FO's is a minor detail in management's view.

What we had with the TA was an attempt to solve the Company's perceived problem. We, meaning the MEC, bent over backwards to be "fair" with the Company. Because that's what they do in the era of Constructive Appeasement. Everyone involved, except the rank and file, were patting themselves on the back. They also failed to apply institutional memory to the issue. Well, the membership disagreed and applied the standard of fairness.

This issue will return. It's a priority for the Company and personal stick in the eye of management. Therefore, we need to fashion a solution that will address the needs of both sides. In my view, seniority is sacrosanct. It's a non-negotiable item. We have already paid a price to eliminate the onerous recovery obligation. The answer is somewhere in the middle. There is an answer, we just didn't find it in the TA.

The Company has a self-induced manning problem. It's all about productivity. As long as you remember this point, you will understand your adversary.

I'm a captain and it will never have to deal with this issue. But, I do believe in fairness. I will continue to apply that standard to this issue.

I'm goin to take a wild guess the fuel hedging bill was a hundred times more costly to 'management' than FOs sitting home on a lca buy.....

Just wondering if there was similar angst expressed.... and if we are expected to 'solve' that issue for them too?

Orvil, you make good points.

I think this will return and when it does the NC will need to shut it down. But from what I can tell and what people are saying about the new NC, they won't.

So, this sucks. It'll probably be back.

My solution is you don't screw over every FO bidding in that category and you don't screw the guy over who was originally awarded or would have been awarded the trip. And when I look at it that way, I don't see a solution.

But it is a 'must have' for them :)...a permanent concession for a temporary problem.

Stupid is as stupid does.

The solution from NA1 is a non-starter. The whole issue is toxic.

Having said that...any fix must have ironclad snap-back language.

Well if they label it a must have, then that's it. You give it to them. If you don't, the NMB will give it to them.

FTB
NC Chairman