Originally Posted by
gloopy
They could say "we demand as one of our highest priorities a significant reduction in the Alaska code share abuse and significantly fewer outsourced aircraft at DCI, particularly the larger RJ's."
That is vague and conceptual and leaves a lot of room at the bargaining table. It merely points to the direction we intend on going. Just like for pay. We didn't say exactly what percentage we were after, but we did say we wanted significant increases in pay. Ditto for many other sections. But when it comes to scope we deviate from that and invent murky constructs like "production balances" which could mean worse scope and more large RJ's depending on how its defined at the moment.
This is exactly my point. Which of these two statements is more specific?
A) We do not support any larger aircraft at DCI, jet, turbofan, or turboprop.
B) We demand as one of our highest priorities a significant reduction in the Alaska code share abuse and significantly fewer outsourced aircraft at DCI, particularly the larger RJs (borrowed from Gloopy, because as usual, he speaks for me).
I would argue they are on the same level, as far as showing our cards or setting the bar. And yet, our union made Statement A and not Statement B. I can only infer that there is some CYA going on with the thousands of RJ pilots they also represent. Also maybe some CYA with us - they don't want to make a strong scope promise now and then have their hands tied down the road. The problem is, I WANT their hands tied (at that time, in that specific area). I'm only one vote, but I'm basically unwilling to budge in that one area. Once the used car salesman gets you to name a number, he has somewhere from which to work.
Not to point any fingers, but I have noticed Slow and Sailing go silent when asked the direct question about reducing DCI flying. So, would either of you confirm (or guess, if you really don't know) that our MEC would also support Statement B above?