Originally Posted by
AltoCumulus
I have always been an advocate for scope. I think if we had 90 seat scope language going into this past arbitration it would have made it much more likely we could have achieved a reduction to 76 or lower. The fact that we had NO scope at all was a big reason we couldn’t convince an arbitrator to create a whole new concept within our contract.
Right now we could think of ourselves as having 1000 seat scope protection. We are protected because the airplane doesn’t exist. Is reducing the scope protection from 1000 seats to 90 seats a worthwhile endeavor? I think it is a clear yes. It would eliminate a lot of nightmare scenarios regarding scope (787’s flown by Atlas with eskimos on the tail) and create a beachhead where one does not presently exist going into 2020.
You have a valid point and that is 90 seat scope is better than no scope. How about we take it a step further and go for less than 76 seats? It's time to grow a pair and draw a line in the sand, stand our ground, and show management that this pilot group is not the "new boss same as the old boss". The caving must stop today.