Originally Posted by
gloopy
So every CBA must have concessions or else they will be iced for all eternity?
If what you meant to say was
compromise then you might have a point. We can compromise from 100% scope at all levels to a point that reduces large RJ's as contracts expire while not allowing one more seat or weight increase at DCI. We can compromise from 6 weeks of touch drop vacation all the way down to 5 weeks of 5 hours a day. We can compromise from every city we serve being a hub to protect against future AS code share abuse to just adding SEA and LAX to the current list of hubs. We can compromise from C2K pay plus full inflation and restoration of 60% FAE retirement to significant raises while retaining profit sharing and upping our defined contribution. We can compromise from 100% JV balance in our favor all the way down to half. A 50% compromise. Half, or course, now being defined as 51.5% for the rest of the decade is 100% fair and balanced too, since they had the "half" scales in their favor for many years. 24 hour long call can be compromised down to 14.
But saying there has to be sections that lose in order to gain to justify concessions during the most positive and profitable period argueably in industry history, and all for 9/6/4/4 with givebacks all around, well, lol. Yeah.

Every negotiation involves some compromise. What I look for is the end product. It should heavily favor us in this environment. The company will have some legitimate needs it wants to address. A contract has to evolve with changes in both regulations and the marketplace.
I am sure you have taken the time to read some of the available information on how the NMB operates and their definitions of reasonableness.
Do you honestly think that if as some suggest we walked into negotiations and stated we will not accept or discuss any concessions in any section of the contract the NMB would embrace that and push us through the process to release?