Given IBT's record on negotiating with the company, I'm not too concerned in the immediate future.
You bring this up a lot, ignoring the fact that RAH is the reason. You can't make them come to the table. Before they needed a contract in place, they would only meet for a half day sporadically. Now all of a sudden they need stability for financing and they're willing to meet monthly and expedite the process. Just wait until BB wants to nullify your deal and keep his new baby and see how willing to come up with a JCBA they are.
You've never been through an airline bankruptcy, have you? The possibility of avoiding the IMSL isn't the main motivation, it's just a sweetener.
I'd say you didn't read my entire post, but you quoted the relevant retort below...
Originally Posted by
STR8NLVL
And all this for 10-15M in savings. Do any of you REALLY believe that 10-15M makes the difference between bankruptcy and viability? ...
No, but I think that $190 million might.
But your deal isn't for $190M, by your own numbers it's for 10-15M. The difference between 185M and 190M will not save the airline. And if you buy that your willingness to bend over makes one iota of difference to the other "stakeholders," you're even more gullible than I first thought. The only thing that speaks to them is return on investment. If they think they must give concessions to avoid losing even more, they will, regardless of your $15M in damages to your wages and our negotiating power.
Out of one side of your mouth you criticize us for our contract and the time it's taking to get a better one, then out of the other you strike a concession deal that directly impedes our ability to do so. I've never felt more confident in my support of the IBT.