Originally Posted by
Cyio
Define "had to accept"? Some would argue the WO's and Non-WO's would be in a far better place right now had some regionals rejected the supposed "had to accept" deals of the past. I am NOT trying to start that argument up as it has been long talked about and nothing new could really be said, but I don't think there is anything that is a "had to accept" condition.
Could there have been job losses, loss of aircraft etc because an offer was turned down? Sure, there could have been, but in the long term what did it save given our current state of affairs?
I agree with you, I think we would all be better off. Within reason though, as we saw with Aceys decline due to their ultimatum. As long as there are dozens of regionals, we are still disposable as long as someone else is willing to do the flying cheaper.
I was just replying to a post earlier that accused the WOs of “having to accept” pay and QOL shortfalls in order to have a flow. That’s just not true.