Quote:
-Having to call after a RSV assignment for release while they have up to an hour to reassign you something. Thats not even 117 legal from what I can see. I set the brake I'm done FDP-wise.
-Dropped for IOE (ROE obligation) doesn't limit you to your original trip duty footprint nor can you just refuse it anymore.
-Positive contact is spelled out very well and many are concerned it's too vague and no better than now.
-Base fleet transition is now a system wide bid rather than base first.
-Equipment lock language is contradictory.
This is just off the top of my head so far. The language is SUPER WEAK. For three years we've been promised a contract we can be proud of and that raises the bar. I'm sorry, but this TA as it stands is NOT that contract and why I'm a solid NO VOTE.
All valid points if that is what you choose to focus on. As a balance of the entire TA in comparison to what we have now, I am a solid yes vote. We will meet at the ballot box soon.Originally Posted by Vegaspilot
And that doesn't even touch on:-Having to call after a RSV assignment for release while they have up to an hour to reassign you something. Thats not even 117 legal from what I can see. I set the brake I'm done FDP-wise.
-Dropped for IOE (ROE obligation) doesn't limit you to your original trip duty footprint nor can you just refuse it anymore.
-Positive contact is spelled out very well and many are concerned it's too vague and no better than now.
-Base fleet transition is now a system wide bid rather than base first.
-Equipment lock language is contradictory.
This is just off the top of my head so far. The language is SUPER WEAK. For three years we've been promised a contract we can be proud of and that raises the bar. I'm sorry, but this TA as it stands is NOT that contract and why I'm a solid NO VOTE.