Originally Posted by
SVA402
What I'm trying to say, is that if your statement that this seatlock issue will fix itself due to natural flow is accurate, what would it cost the company anything to make it shorter in the contract? And back to the original idea, even if it does cost the company money, it's a big deal and something we should fight for. You never know what will happen in the future, what airplanes we might add or how we might grow or stagnate. That's the whole purpose of the contract, these things can't be left to chance.
OK, got it, you're proposing a reduction in the seat lock to maybe two years? Trust me, even if the company were to make money off a proposal, if we want it, they will want something for it. We have shown that home basing could save them money, but the lose of control scares them, so they want something for it.
This is just like want we do. They bring us more planes with the 767 LOA and we want something for it, same thing with the 777 LOA and the AQP LOA. These by themselves are good for us, but we want something more because they want them.