The only thing that image is missing is a little froth at the mouth.

Thanks, I didn't know that

for now.

that will be covered later in a SLOA......or at the next amendable date as a means to address managements 'needs'.

I pointed this out earlier and the usual water carriers jumped on me.

"they're not allowed to do that" is what you say before "we didn't think they'd do that"

everyone should be reading this document with an appreciation for the next logical, or at least potential follow on move.

the development of vb integration to our operation will unavoidably have some tangible result. on both sides of the table. if it proves a net positive for mgmt....they will presumably want to expand the program.

of course providing vb with certain restrictions automatically allows development of the economic argument that success is simply one 'tweak' away.

the vb FAs do presently originate to ocean crossings. sfo-hnl/ogg comes to mind.

perhaps future relaxation of any vb restrictions will once again allow an opportunity to 'monetize' yet another pwa component.

The reason we "jump" on guys is because it is one thing to claim a concession based on the contractual language, but it is another to claim that a provision is meaningless because "mgmt will just violate the contract anyway or get some future SLOA."

You can't really have viable discussions with that approach. You might as well discount any pay raise because "hey at some point mgmt will ask for pay cuts anyway."

We should be wary of course. But you have to vote yea or nay based on the actual, binding contractual language as it exists right now, not how it "might" look later.

HF....not so much that mgmt. would ask for pay rates back....but as the experts always ask?.....what are we giving up to get that increase?

we do have to take or leave the document as it exists for the vote. but to not appreciate the potential development and maturation of any, but in particular 'new' conditions....is to cast an uninformed vote.

I'll grant you that wariness and planning for future "enhancements" is always something we should be keeping in mind. You just can't base a TA vote on what "might" happen. On the other hand we would be doing ourselves a huge disservice if we just assume nothing will ever possibly change.

I'm neutral on the whole VB/TDY thing. I'll admit that the "no ocean crossings" thing was a good feature, and that undoubtedly mgmt would love to get rid of that at some future juncture (assuming that VBs are implemented at all per the TA language).

I'm in section XX row 19 for the Bammer beatdown. Orange section.

GBO

my only comment on the substance of this ta has been only that it is no where near the bad deal the first one was. which i would think is a near universal conclusion among the group.

you are right....its not productive to engage in endless 'what ifs' on the language. otoh...it is essential one consider potential outcomes with two intellectual boundaries.....first, what is the probability of a considered outcome, and second....what quality of contractual provisions are integrated to either allow, or prohibit the considered outcome.