Originally Posted by
Bluedriver
This TA has SOME scope. The scope prevents all the things this company has no intentions of doing in the foreseeable future, which is the only reason the agreed to it. The scope also allows the things the company DOES intend to use, and that's why they required it to be allowed.
Our RJ scope, which the company had no interest in, is gone with a merger with Alaska (we will have negotiated limits, but we will lose the outright ban), so don't get too excited.
Glad the TA has more protections than the PEA, but understand it's not SWA scope and we haven't yet won a permanent victory.
You really don’t know what you are talking about. As was pointed out at the roadshow the BJ has had “no interest” in many things and then turned around and pursued those things. No doubt that United would love our scope and, in fact, they have said so.
What is really ridiculous though is the statement that if there is a merger with Alaska we will lose our protections, including the RJ protection.
If there is a merger with Alaska (or anyone else) our contract and its scope remain in place until there is both a JCBA and an agreement or arbitration award on seniority integration. Base on all this deal being better than Alaska’s in most key issues (have you seen their RJs flying around or their lack of an ADG or their vacation distro dropping to 3% in summer?) I’m pretty sure their pilot group would work to keep our scope as well as the bulk of our agreement.
Or we could, as you suggest, go into a merger with no CBA and no scope, and deprive ourselves of any leverage in the JCBA negotiations and completely prejudice ourselves in a seniority integration arbitration. That doesn’t sound like much of a plan to me.