Originally Posted by
LonesomeSky
That's what I'm getting at. Their position will be: SFO closes unless you give us a co-domicile. They could also play games with SFO, like making it looks like it'll close but then offering a glimmer of hope as part of an otherwise unacceptable contract. No better leverage than messing with people's families.
I think the game can be played both ways. Having crews available at 3 Bay Area airports would provide a lot of flexibility for the company.
It had been referenced that having SFO actually saves the company money, and during the last pilot call they said a Boeing base was still the plan. That said, things will probably change next week.