.
OK, I am asking again nicely. I am not asking which sections you don't like. I get that loud and clear. I am asking for clarification on your original accusational post (quoted at the top of this post).

Please cite some "actual language" and the same subject in a NN which are divergent.

I am trying to compare the NNs to the full langauge TA and so far, the NNs seem aligned. Any differences would make me very skeptical, so I look forward to getting some precise examples of divergence from you.

Thanks in advance.
Your buddy...

KnotSoFast
.

You're exactly right KSF...I'm struggling with the same problem. I see many of the familiar faces disparaging the TA but I am still hoping they'll actually provide detailed examples on specific portions of the TA so we can understand where these concessions are. I want to be better educated on the decision too but its hard when the only argument presented is the generalized statement that the TA is concessionary.

I'll use Virtual Basing as an example. I read a post on here today with lots of railing about how Virtual Basing is terrible and is a huge concession that will help the company and hurt the pilots. Pilots can volunteer to go to those VB or not, as they choose. For a commuter in a city packed with other commuters like Dallas, having a PS ticket to and from work seems like a nice deal. For a commuter having to pay for a crash pad to sit reserve, a paid hotel room seems like a nice deal. But that's only my perspective, so I'm hoping to get some specifics on where the concessions are with doing virtual bases, as with everything else.

There are plenty of smart people on here who know a great deal about the implications of the language in the TA...I'm just hoping they'll chime in and help educate the rest of us so we can cut through the unsubstantiated posts that seems to clutter this forum.

Scope NN and the FAQ are misleading (to be nice about it, lying to not be so nice). There is one example.

Failing to disclose other concessions in the NN while they touted pay rates could be seen as another. I could go through each NN and compare it to the section of the contract, but hopefully a well-written con paper will do that. If not, I promise to come back and try to do my best.

Keep up the accusations that this is some sort of conspiracy. I am a regular line pilot that pays dues and occasionally emails my reps to express my POV. I have a lot of years left here, and I do not want to sell scope and QOL for industry-standard wages. You are free to disagree. All I ask is that you actually engage in debate or discourse instead of just saying that because I think this is a bad deal for us that I must have some ulterior motive.

Fair enough. There was a slide yesterday at the MEC meeting (posted on FB) that showed this:

"Slide showing total headcount change. 2017: -8, 2018: -8, 2019: +14. Increase attributable to the change in vacation credit (first two weeks to 3:45/day) in 2019."

The entire TA seems to be a net loss of -2 pilots. The cons, at least as far as staffing goes, seem to be overstated.

.
BtoA: Not trying to pick a fight here, but once again, your answer is non-responsive. I have re-read both of those sections, in both the TA and the NN, and I see nothing that I would term misleading.
.
If you don't want to post specific misleading language in both docs (or you can't), that's fine, I will stop pestering you and consider the issue as settled and that you can not actually find anything misleading and your original post in this thread was nothing but forum puffery.
.
Your buddy,

KSF
.

I'm a bit skeptical, but I'm also expecting to have about 45+ days to look into it further.

BToA,


Can you just come up with one example? Start the ball rolling and APC will take care of the rest.

Because they disregard the pilot jobs already lost to our JV scope violations. Not to mention, this does not take into account when the company drops to the BH minimum and gives our flying to all of the JV partners. What about those numbers?

Asked and answered. The half-truths about the job cost of our scope section is my #1.

What are those specific numbers?

How do you figure they will drop to the improved 650,000 block hours when the current limit is about 1/2 that?

Did you read the NN where they said growth was transferred to other theaters? The implication being there were no job losses.