Originally Posted by
gloopy
Not only that, but we are being told its still a net gain because they could do it right now if they wanted to without any pilot's permission.
Yet our scope isn't set up like that at all. We own everything, from the front end, until and unless its permitted. So where in our current language is this permitted? Cause I'm not seeing it.
This seems like the equivalent of adding a line saying the MEC chairman has to approve a company plan to stop providing transportation to the overnight hotels and then calling that a win because we control it through the MEC chairman.
The burden of proof for the claim that the foreign alter ego is currently allowed rests with the pro-TA movement and the MEC/reps/NC endorsing it. Until they can clearly show how current book allows this, we have no choice but to call bravo sierra.
There's more to it, management wants that because they only need one guys approval.
I'm writing a case study right now but its way too long for APC. Think 5+ year plan, and how much of how many airlines and other business Delta will own in 5-10 years. We are an industry leader, the next step in growing the enterprise and shareholder value is to grow the business vertically and horizontally. Industrializing the company lowers the risk in any one sector of the business. If we then generate only say, 25-30% of revenue we are effectively marginalized. We may be in a position where a MC thinks its a good trade to give up international branding to keep us in the game. 1.E.9. is a seed planted for the future. This is also a good argument for protecting scope. The more we do on both ends of the scope the more operations we capture.
We could be the next Ford Motor company. The name says Ford but have you seen all they own and do? In other countries with their brands and others? And where is there manufacturing? Why do they have ownership in steel companies? etc.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3296...ust-an-airline