Originally Posted by
AxlF16
Was there really a legal agreement?
If they say 'no', what is the companies basis for further delay and removing the alleged mid Jun 'agreement'? Spite?
That's all the more reason for US to have 'lobbyists'.
I'm confused. Which timeline? We've all agreed on so many that I lose track.
You really need to think this through in more detail. This isn't a one shot Hail Mary.... Even if they say 'no', there is no harm or jeopardy in asking. Last I checked the RLA doesn't limit the number of times we can ask.
I can understand where you're coming from if you think the company is negotiating in good faith. But if that's what you think then we have bigger problems than agreeing on strategy. If, on the other hand, you believe the company has not been negotiating in good faith, then why would you object to asking for release?
F16....Don't object to a release at all and of couse the company hasnt negotiates in good faith..But I do object to your MCs finger to the CAL pilots by not communicating with my leadership on what is clearly a joint decison. In fact, i like the intent and aggressiveness... if it doesnt screw up a better approach/ strategy to getting a JCBA sooner. No one but UA knows and thats not good enough..UA MEC may have done this level of strategy development but no one on the CAL side is yet briefed. iIf he has a gameplan that will work, then count me in...but dont expect CAL guys to blindly trust your leadership above our own until he communicates with us. If he wants our support then talk with the other half of joint...