Originally Posted by
AirbusFO
Can someone explain the reason this negotiation is "cost neutral" and what does that actually mean? I have read the MTA and everything that has come out, but I am not sure why folks are saying this negotiation is cost neutral..
The actual language states that the arbitrated result must adhere to the "economic terms" of the MTA...meaning, it cannot cost more (or less) than the original contract. Things can be changed, but what's taken from one area must be given elsewhere and vice versa. The company was pretty smart to put that in there. It essentially removes any risk to them in an arbitrated result.