Originally Posted by
Sink r8
Thanks for being respectful in your disagreement; I will do the same.
We both want the same thing as an end result, we just weem to disagree about the path to get there. I think we both know this can't be the TA that resolves all Scope issues, so the question is about the best way.
I think this TA adresses many large, middle, and small-gauge Scope issues. I'm glad we don't add a new larger airplane, and I'm not particularly obsessed about adding more of a permitted aircraft, provided the end result is that we don much more of our own flying at the end.
I think you see a path where turning this TA down gets us what you and I both want, and I see that path as a dead-end, which doesn't connect with our objectives over time.
If I knew 100% that in future contracts DALPA would not give away any more large (70/76 seat) RJ's I would consider voting yes for this TA and live with the current language. I agree that it's good that larger airplanes were not conceded in this TA. To me this TA represents an additional step that allows management to outsource mainline gauge airplanes to the lowest bidder. When will the trend stop? That's what scares me.
Thanks for the civil chat, I do realize that we both want the same outcome.