Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

When I read this from you Scoop, it gets me worried because I know you really get this stuff. Take a look at this from a very big picture view. Why does plugging all the holes in our top end scope require concessions on bottom end scope? Who the hell made that rule? Why can't our scope be nothing but gains on the top, middle and bottom? Our largest and profitable competitor has it, thus the NMB couldn't call our request to begin the process of moving toward SWAPA scope unreasonable.

I understand your logic, but in my view the premise is based on having our expectations completely managed regarding scope. The NMB could NOT call us unreasonable. If it came down to a public battle before a strike, the public would be completely behind us fighting to reverse outsourcing. Outsourcing hits every working American right in their spinal chord...it's everyone's vulnerability. All it would require is our union to portray it that way, and therein lies the rub. Have you noticed that not one single union document refers to our outsourcing as outsourcing? They call it DCI, JV's, code share...but NEVER outsourcing. Why is that? I know the answer but it doesn't matter. It only matters whether we members will allow our expectations to be badly managed and accept the utterly false premise that a gain in one section of scope requires a loss in another part of scope. This is Bu!!$h!t. Everything is on our side on this...the NMB and public opinion. If we don't fight for this with everything going our way, we won't fight for anything.

Where am I wrong here man...what am I missing?

Carl