Originally Posted by
DAWGS
If we flew the RJs here, it would have to be initially be for similar rates. ALPA would not lose/gain much in dues either way. They gain more in outsourcing by minimizing our leverage over ALPA flying and keeping the DFR lawsuits at bay.
Regarding AMR, we are not in bankruptcy and I will not make a decision to outsource our jobs based on proposals of companies/pilots in bankruptcy. DALPA allowed the 70 seater line to be crossed in BK and the fact that other companies/pilots are pushing the limits now doesn't surprise me one bit. DALPA did not hold the line. Allowing more 76 seaters only puts more pressure on the rest of the industry to outsource their NB fleets. We are now the bellwether for the industry, not AMR, simply because we would be willfully surrendering more NB jobs while not in bankruptcy.
I respect your position, and I'm honestly not trying to change it. The reality is that whatever AMR gets scope wise will likely be more then we allow now. Then we will have even LESS leverage IMO. The NMB will consider what's going on in the rest of the industry. Not just DALs world. And so if we vote it down, and continue to do so, our position will likely become weaker as we go along. I could be wrong, but I think it's something to consider.