Can you read stzback? I have my doubts.

8.Section 4

• Eliminate NRFO SDP position.

• Modify NRFO related manuals, eliminate certain NRFOs, recategorize remaining NRFOs into

two groups: Group 1 any crewmember off IOE can complete; and Group 2 both

crewmembers must be NRFO trained and have one year in the fleet.

• A crewmember who completes (i.e., the crewmember must remain available for duty for the

entire NRFO assignment) a NRFO assignment will be guaranteed a Flight Hour Credit per LOA

27‐010. If the crewmember flies during the same duty day and his Flight Hours as described

in 27.2(G) for the duty day exceed the Flight Hour credit, then his Flight Hours calculated as

described in 27.2(G) will be used instead of the Flight Hour credit.

• Company may use OEM pilots or OEM contract pilots for NRFO flights.

Right there tough guy. Black and white.

You'll feel a whole lot different about scope when it's YOUR job on the line.

If EFPP is such a nothingburger, WHY does management want it back so bad?

I'm certainly not rich. Own one home. No airplane. No boat. No kids. No grandkids. No intention of working until 67 let alone 70. Totally supported one FDP rate. Totally support one PIC scale and one SIC scale.

You really think I AM BEING SELFISH for rejecting this turd of an offer? That's rich. News flash sport. You're either a management troll, kneepad wearing stooge, or #jetcamp newbie hoping to make a quick score before heading off to a major leaving the people who BUILT THIS PLACE behind.

This deal will never see a vote as-is and your little fantasy of replacing the E-Board is just that: a fantasy.

Theres a very big difference between that and your post: "If you think allowing OEM pilots to routinely fly OUR airplanes".
Company may use OEM/OEM contract pilots for NRFO flights vs..... allowing OEM pilot to routinely fly OUR airplanes".

Extrapolating mucht?

You haven't been at NutJets very long, have you? If you have, you would know how many dams have burst over cracks in the dams.

Since you didn't realize the bribe check ("signing bonus") was already a vote-buying scam, you're just as clueless as the people you attack on here.

"Of suspicion" is how you try to discredit anyone posting relevant information simply because they don't live on the forums like you and your buddies.

There is truth to what new-hires observe and their opinion shouldn't be silenced just because they haven't "paid their dues" into your club. It's a joke how people are called "company stooge" or "mgmt pilot!" when they make a valid point that doesn't perfectly align with the latest union chant.

It's very reasonable to question the status of anonymous people on a message board like this. One confirmed stooge was one named "Twinky The Kid". Although you may or may not have been here then, he was outed.

I don’t get the fixation on the NRFO deal. There simply isn’t enough NRFO flights to justify turning down such a pay increase to keep NRFO while it only benefits so little people.

The EFPP deal, don’t know enough to comment. Maybe someone can expand on this? Regardless, this was a major economic offer with no further extension and now left with nothing because Pedro and his gang deemed it was not good enough. Shame on him and his posse.

"Live on the forums"....that's rich. I post less than once a week. And its not a matter of paying dues. What it IS, is a matter of having been in professional aviation long enough to have validation in what you have to say. You're like those college professors in their late 20s to early 30s. Know so much about things you have no experience in.

I think 15 years Part 135/91 qualifies me.
But go ahead, let's hear what your requirement is for validation...?

Your arrogance displayed here is a disgrace to this profession. If anything, THAT should "invalidate" what YOU have to say.

Back in the 90's the legacy carries were told that it would just be a few RJs. That grew into half of the domestic seat being flown by regional carriers. Right now they are asking for NRFO flight. I agree its a small portion of the flying. What if they come back a few years from now and say, lets get a different pilot group to fly all of the phenoms, afterall nobody wants to fly the airplane. It isnt a problem until it becomes a problem for you and by that time it is too late.

"Major economic offer" does not mean it should be released for a ratification vote. Until the EBoard believes they have the best offer in hand there will not be a vote. Like it or not that is how things work. It is my opinion that giving concessions in this environment is tripping over a dollar to pick up a dime.