Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
Yes, because the 50 seaters are going away based on economics. We will have gained nothing and lost by allowing more seats to be outsourced.
Still oppose because we will have shown a future arbitrator (yet again) that we were willing to allow more outsourcing of our jobs...if the price was right. This horrible precedent gets thrown in our face when we management's abuse of language we thought was "iron clad."
Still oppose. Because as you have so correctly said in the past, "I won't believe it until it's on the ramp painted with widgets and Delta pilots are sitting in the seats".
I hope you get my drift. You're giving our management credit for being straight-up guys who actually want to follow our contract. They do not deserve that level of credit.
Carl
You picked apart my scenario wrt to it being iron clad or not, when I was trying to make a general point. Sure my outline has holes in it, but I am saying that if we conceded a small point (i.e. allowing some of the 76 seaters to go to 80 seats) while simultaneously reducing the overall number allowed, I see that as a win. Then it would be a matter of cleaning up some of the other retarded language like the one way check valve for the increase in the 255 number with no corresponding requirement to reduce it. There is NOTHING iron clad about THAT kind of language.. But again, the mantra of "not one more seat, one more pound.." looks good on paper, but really paints us in a corner.