Originally Posted by
rp2pilot
Perhaps he didn't like it, perhaps he did, but that's immaterial because he wasn't citing it as the reason for his "yes" vote. The prior poster explicitly cited "scope" as the source of his "no" vote. The intent of the question was, in my estimation, to determine whether the original poster actually understood the scope provisions of the TA and had valid reservations about it or if he was misleading about his true reasons for voting or advocating "no".
I fully understand the scope section. It has been beat to death on here. The reason I brought it up is because it was stated that people voted no for other reasons than contract. I don't think many at LUAL realize what a blow it was to give the company more than 50 seats, especially to the jr lCAL pilots. We had fought for years to keep it. In fact we were offered no furloughs for relaxing our scope and said no. I understood that the 70 seaters were being forced on us with the merger, a huge pill to swallow, but could not get past adding almost 10% more lift to that and giving away 76 seats. That is especially tough as it is essentially the same plane as the 90 seater. I still think it was a mistake. My no vote had nothing to do with anything other then the merits of the contract.