You are right the language in the Global Scope agreement is pretty good. My main problem with GS is the missing sections on trans boarder and narrow body flights between theaters. I know there are some generic protections for these built into scope (1.E.2….), but I don’t think they are good enough.

To me the GS vote is a choice between taking a much improved agreement now and trying to plug the few holes later vs trying to write all the language now.

My problem with the plug holes later approach is in my opinion the company mainly wants the ability to have theater flexibility on WB. That desire is our leverage to achieve equitable growth, and the remediation language. Once the company has their flexibility, why would they negotiate on the missing sections?

If/when we approach the company to write for example Aeromexico scope language, the company will most likely argue that those are covered by the generic language that we just agreed to and ask us to honor that agreement.

I think adding the missing language is important to do before we have a new global scope agreement and while we still have some leverage to get the company to negotiate.