Originally Posted by
aldonite7667
It wasn’t meant to be insulting. You screen name would suggest it.
History doesn’t back you up. Alpa has a procedure for mergers, “values committees” do not. You’re speaking from a position of guessing how things may go.
You can’t seriously think we were better off without scope language and defined relationship with the company?
We WERE alpa during the AIP/TA vote. ALPA merger policy and McCaskill Bond would have guided a pre-CBA merger and we wouldn’t get fleeced any worse than we would under this CBA. If something like UAL were to happen then or now, we would/will get fleeced in an SLI. If it’s a merger of equals it’ll be pretty straight forward, regardless. And there would be no stapling. So saying that a yes vote for something that is largely substandard in other areas (not just pay rates like you claim the 26% is ****ed about) is justified by having merger protections is laughable.