Originally Posted by
pilotpayne
Would you prefer we didn’t have scope? I guess we could have skipped it because in all of the above you suggest it’s pretty much worthless.
Dude I don’t know what will happen in 27 years but I feel better walking in with scope on the first contract.
It’s funny you come up with all of these things yet when I say the company could change business plans you say nope not buying it.
So it’s a theoretical one sided argument like what could have maybe happened if we voted no. I really don’t feel like playing that game. I don’t even know if I’ll be alive in 27 years and I’m not going to take the time (especially with you) (that’s not in a rude way) to try to debate every scenario.
Again we have scope it’s good. There is other stuff to work on.
Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying the contract needed to be done because of scope or anything like that. I as well as you knew that the company would most likely violate the contract day one. And it has. Or find a work around, this new coat. I’m just saying it not as worthless as some say. That’s all
To your first question, I have said:
"As I said, no JB pilot has suggested that RJ scope wasn't expected/demanded, but it's not a good justification for expecting/justifying a crummy CBA."
To this: "Dude I don’t know what will happen in 27 years..." You said you had 27 years left and that this issue wouldn't be an issue. That's the whole reason I wrote that long post.
And you say, you're glad we have scope. I say, it's partial scope, hence the content of the long post.