View Single Post
Old 05-25-2015 | 08:08 AM
  #187  
gettinbumped
Banned
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,282
Likes: 0
From: A320 Cap
Default

Originally Posted by sleeves
It shows that the 747, 777 deals were carve outs from the contract. A carve out from the same part of section 8 that these guys are asking for.
Credit where credit is due, sleeves. I disagree with your argument but you have been very civil of late which I appreciate.

In my opinion the 747/777 is NOT a carve out. Any base closing going forward will include the 24 month grandfather rights, regardless of what it is I would bet. The MOU came about because a base closing followed by a re-opening a year later was so bone headed they didn't think of it while negotiating the contract. It causes a huge expensive mess for the company, which they earned. Personally I wish we had let them sit in it and not given them 24 month relief, but it is what it is. Going forward I expect you will see base closings have 24 month recall rights by MOU 14 and regular bumps be covered under Section 8. Unless this ill conceived C171 resolution is adopted
Reply