This is not a "recurrent on iPad" LOA, it's a Distance Learning LOA. Looking at it in that light, leads me to believe that all learning, other than PC's, PT's and door drills will be DL. The LOA limits DL days per month, it says nothing about DL per year.

The language is so open ended, it could be used to do almost anything related to "training". For example, it says and I'll paraphrase instead of typing the entire paragraph - the tablet may be used to admin dist learning in lieu of recurrent, OR ANY OTHER COURSE OF TNG (for example but NOT limited to)……….- In other words, they could find two days a month for every month of the year if they want to. 24 days is possible although not likely.

When looking at language in contracts, don't look at what it says and ignore what it doesn't say. You must look at both. "It says this, but doesn't say that." The omitted specifics are just as able to affect our lives as is the included specifics.

Also, you mention already being at min days. Not all of us work min day off schedules. I, and many others, work max day off lines. I'm looking at losing days off and I don't particularly like it.

It has been suggested that some sort of Guaranteed Day Off language might make this LOA palatable; I don't know about the GDO idea because except for my one GS month and PC/PT months, I already have every day off as a GDO.

Many good points being brought up here as well as the general NKS thread.

I was a NO before, and I remain a NO. Just way too many benefits for the company w/out much of a benefit coming our way. This LOA isn't FFF.

That's exactly what I've been saying, just a work tool, like the old toughbooks
Nothing else...
Now the DL is nothing else than a Txxtd in this Trojan Horse Deal.

agreed

filler

Out on the line this past week has been interesting. The vast majority of pilots of whom I've come into contact have volunteered their "NO" sentiment.

The poor FO's were agreeing, so that you would Shut The Front Door. Lets be honest

Actually, I wouldn't insult my FOs in the manner you're attempting. In the modern world of airline flying, no FO has to put up with an overbearing Captain. I've never been contacted by Pro Standards, so I'll assume that your characterization comes from political differences rather than cockpit manners.

With that said, maybe you should re read what I wrote, I said that the vast majority of pilots I've come into contact with have volunteered their "NO" sentiment. I didn't say "the FO's I've flown with". To be specific; three of the four company JS'rs I carried - two pilots I ran into at the hotel and two crews I exchanged airplanes with all volunteered their NO.

Even if someone is a solid NO, that isn't necessarily an attempt to shut me up, I'm actually a person who likes the LOA but dislikes the language, or rather who dislikes the "greyness" of the language.

I put my feelings on paper to my reps early on. I went on record then as supporting the effort but requested a different tone to the "protection" language. The DL language and explanations from our union are inadequate in their present form, but I would readily vote for the general provisions provided the wording was more specific in protecting our off days.

Don't worry, if I was trying to damage your union team, I'd have run for office. Chill out.

Hear ye Hear ye! The Olive Garden 7 have spoken.

FYI. They all b@&$ch about you and your endless cockpit rants.
"when we merge with Alliegiant, Im gonna bid back to the 80"
"if Ben wanted to really run this place he'd call me"
Really?
My personal favorite? I have to hear about is your JFK conspiracy. I upgraded so as not to have to listen to this crap anymore but, its so bad I get to relive it. Thanks!

Law/Goldstein 2016
STFrontDoor.com

Didn't you run for an office in your LEC recently (around 2 years ago)?

I'm a 'no' too. The idea of the LOA is ok - the execution is not, for many of the reasons listed on this forum.

Forum users are the vocal minority, though.

What!! We are merging with Allegiant?!?!