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