Sept2017 had 26 RB lines.. :eek: So in a year we take out 20% and are left with 5. The Union needs to get on top of this ASAP!

Just another grievance to lose.

Too bad the lawyers aren't paid based on whether they win or not.

Wait, wasn't this the contract that was supposed to "tighten up the language"? :rolleyes:

I think they are going to need more reserve because the 757 MEM bidpack is probably the worst I have ever seen.

You’re making a correlation that doesn’t exist. Last year the R lines weren’t built with 100% of known R-days. So, assuming using 80% of known R-days will yield a number of R-lines that somehow relates to last year is not a valid comparison.
It’s pretty obvious that a “known” R-day isn’t a plentiful item when compared to the total number of R-days that occur in any given month. Those pesky details the 57% sacrificed for the “time value of money”. :rolleyes:

You can blame the 57% for a lot of things but bad/weak contractual language is not one of them.

[QUOTE=ColCargill;2654481]You can blame the 57% for a lot of things but bad/weak contractual language is not one of them.[/QUOTE

What??? Should of read the contract and not just listened to the snow “sell” job of the union!

5 RB lines?
Seriously...how much day flying is there in your bidpack?

Since you’re not ‘buying’ it...you must have some idea of the typical RB utilization in your seat.

And in response to a different post, No...not a management guy, nor anything but a member of the Union

But feel free to continue throwing stones.

If it’s as Absolutely Obvious there’s no Other even remotely rational explanation, then it would be a pretty easy grievance to win.

Maybe someone could explain why there are 30/75 and 34/33 VTO/R lines respectively in the Sept A300 bid pack?

The idea that anyone that voted 'No' or 'Yes' 3 years ago knew that the company would use this paragraph in this matter is not truthful. I have never heard anyone say they 'knew' the company would do this, until now when we are getting screwed. So to continue on blaming people for voting 'Yes" is just trying to pass the buck, or dilute the argument from who is to blame. The company is to blame. This is totally their idea. They want more of us into secondaries for PBS. So it appears someone over their manipulated the language to fit there agenda.

I have notes from when this section was explained to us and it doesn't say anything about reducing the number of R lines. My notes say that 80% of all reserve lines will be built into bidpack reserve lines, and all R24 will be in the bidpack.
I talked to the negotiating committee about this before the contract was signed, and there was nothing about what the company has chosen to do in their explanation.



The word 'known' is being used like a weapon. Like Pres. Clinton saying, what does the word 'is' mean. As if they didn't 'know' for at least the last 10 years that we needed around 100 MD FO on reserve.



This is a grab from the company. To say we have to 'live with it' or 'we should know better' is ludicrous. The only way we should 'know better,' is not believe anything they say.

Sorry I disagree - this is one of the main reasons I voted no. If you did not see this section as a PBS grab you had your eyes closed.