It is an assumption that with JETCRW, acknowledging it is a prerequisite to 2-way communication. Your conventional wisdom does not apply when technology is involved. This is precisely the problem being debated in courts with technology companies every day. People are bringing in their layman understanding but coming to incorrect conclusions because they do not have the benefit of knowing the technology platform.

If you want a lesson on assumption vs. fact, look no further than the FAA paper that ALPA distributed regarding cleaning vs. the chief pilot response. The CP response is a mindjob leading you to fill in the blanks with assumption in order to extract work from you (for free). They know they are in a legal bind so they could only say "look over there, squirrel!". [incidentally, make sure you read the WHOLE thing...there's 20 pages, not just the first 2 or 3]

As the language stands in the TA, they could interpret positive communication in JETCRW however they want. It's one of dozens of dangerous deficiencies in the TA.

If it's not explicitly written, it doesn't exist. That's just how legal stuff works because otherwise we would live in a world of assumption, innuendo, and expectation. Law was set up to provide a fair, organized way of thinking social contracts.

The Railway Labor Act Simplified

This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

 

Right now they will call you if u don’t acknowledge...I don’t think that will change if the TA passes

 

Lol...whoop, whoop, whoop...

 

An assumption again.


What if they don't call? What is your legal defense then?




The Railway Labor Act Simplified

This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

 

And its an assumption that you think you'll get better stuff in TA2, an assumption that you'll get a Delta contract.

Its an assumption that what is read in any contract is what is understood between both parties.

Its an assumption that voting NO will be worth it.

Its an assumption that you'll get release on a strike.

It's an assumption that JBLU will exhaust any and all loopholes.

Plz, get over it. Everything you say Q has somewhat of assumptions eating away in it. Sorry but you're not a reasonable person.

 

There's one fundamental difference which allows me to use assumption, or more accurately, uncertainty. All of the arguments you just made against my position are in the context of negotiation. I accept uncertainty in negotiation just like you can't predict the outcome of a war.

On the other hand, a contract is not a negotiation. A contract is a take it or leave it proposition in it's entirety (unless you go back to renegotiate). If the contract is vague, it invites assumption where it should be virtually non-existent. Why even bother to have a contract if it leaves so much assumption?

So you see, one domain inherently allows assumption (uncertainty) whereas the other domain should have virtually no assumption (uncertainty).

Isn't it unreasonable to have a contract with so many loopholes? As someone who has worked many contracts (not limited to aviation), I can tell you this contract has too many holes and is dangerous now, and in the future. It is an assumption that we can get TA2 done in a month, but it's better than the absolute certainty of defeat that is guaranteed with TA1.

Perhaps you need to stop allowing yourself to "get over it" and take a stand on principles rather than allow yourself and your profession to be walked on. All of the yes vote talking points are precisely what F&H engineered the general population to say and think. They own you.

The Railway Labor Act Simplified

This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.

 

The ignore list is the gift that keeps on giving.

 

Couldn’t logically debate him so you resorted to ignoring him?

 

I dont think that's why many ppl ignore Q, and you know that. I am close to putting the first person on ignore (several times I just scroll past what Q says). And its not cause of any stupid debate, it's just getting old and APC is the wrong place to accomplish Q's agenda. I'd rather see him/her swing into action with union work (even possibly MEC role) and make a change.

APC is for chit chat and reasoning. Debating? Make it reasonable. It's not a war ground here.