Possible T/A for MEC Review??
08-03-2012, 09:01 AM
#71
Keep Calm Chive ON
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
SCOPE needs to be broken down beyond "details". It needs to be sliced, diced, and dissected like your 8th Grade formaldehyde froggy.
Hearing SCOPE ring common as the pinnacle concern among the combine Pilot Group, this is where A LOT of the devil will reside. Be VERY careful in studying whatever T/A is handed down our way.
I don't see it as "happenstance" that SCOPE is contained in "Section 1".
Your entitled to your vote, as is any voting member when the T/A "passes the mustard" with the respective MEC's.
First and foremost, SCOPE is huge in just that, SCOPE (size). Since you touch on the 'size', I'm personally NOT "OK" with 76 seat Scope. Right now, under the present L-UA provisions, we are allowing 70 seat hulled (config'ed to 66 seats with SkyWest) turbo-jets. I hear what you're saying about "Caps" (Ratios too??), but when building in all the "fluff" surrounding the restricted 'hull', lets not give them 'more' seats to run the bar up against. What's next, 90, or 110 seats on the following T/A??
Again....To each their own. Your vote is your "vote", and I respect that. This CBA will be the "CBA of ALL CBA's" for many on the Combine List. Spend the time accordingly to study/inform yourselves in the best manner when the time comes.
Hearing SCOPE ring common as the pinnacle concern among the combine Pilot Group, this is where A LOT of the devil will reside. Be VERY careful in studying whatever T/A is handed down our way.
I don't see it as "happenstance" that SCOPE is contained in "Section 1".
Your entitled to your vote, as is any voting member when the T/A "passes the mustard" with the respective MEC's.
First and foremost, SCOPE is huge in just that, SCOPE (size). Since you touch on the 'size', I'm personally NOT "OK" with 76 seat Scope. Right now, under the present L-UA provisions, we are allowing 70 seat hulled (config'ed to 66 seats with SkyWest) turbo-jets. I hear what you're saying about "Caps" (Ratios too??), but when building in all the "fluff" surrounding the restricted 'hull', lets not give them 'more' seats to run the bar up against. What's next, 90, or 110 seats on the following T/A??
Again....To each their own. Your vote is your "vote", and I respect that. This CBA will be the "CBA of ALL CBA's" for many on the Combine List. Spend the time accordingly to study/inform yourselves in the best manner when the time comes.
08-03-2012, 10:08 AM
#72
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
(plz don't fall for it like we did)
08-03-2012, 10:35 AM
#74
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: 787 Capt.
Posts: 644
I'm not getting worked up over any rumors on this board. I'll wait until a TA is actually announced by the joint MECs. Until then this is all speculation and not worthy if getting mad or excited about.
08-03-2012, 10:51 AM
#75
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Posts: 181
Originally Posted by A320:1239641
I'm not getting worked up over any rumors on this board. I'll wait until a TA is actually announced by the joint MECs. Until then this is all speculation and not worthy if getting mad or excited about.
08-03-2012, 11:24 AM
#77
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: 787 Capt.
Posts: 644
08-03-2012, 11:45 AM
#78
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 2172/1437
Posts: 123
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
