Originally Posted by
jamesholzhauer
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.
Of course it does. I was more referring to His reference to scope. Do you remember the 5 documents? Is that the iron clad protection that would have held up in terms of scope? United has Terrible Scope protection, and right now, UAL is asking for scope relief in some areas. I'll take all the protections we can get.