Originally Posted by
aa73
To which my answer is, with your No vote, the group 1 language was still the same. So even by voting No, the company could still go after the 717s as a group 1 aircraft. It was in the MTA, not in the JCBA.
So who's the prime example here Sir? I think we were all screwed the minute the MTA was signed and the cost neutral arbitration backstop was put in. Yes or No, the outcome was that the company wins regardless.
Brilliant play by the company, and APA fell for it lock stock and barrel.
Not everyone here is "blinded by the money"... I wasn't. I chose between bad and worse. You seem to think that you had the company by the balls by voting no. I disagree: following the advice and warnings from the USAir guys, these guys (P/K) had everything planned out with arbitration and had no pressing need for the items they got from us.
You remain the prime example. Nothing personal, there are thousands who were just as ill-informed when they cast a vote.
Your ignorance of the "certificated versus configured" extends to the use of leverage, and what constitutes leverage in negotiation. A negotiation which never happened.
It was never a choice between "bad and worse". It was a choice between a negotiated contract, or accepting a 'deal' that the Company unilaterally proposed.
And if you think they are done dealing, read Wilson's press release. 66% means that Jerrold blew it by at least 15%. It isn't over.