Alpha - thanks. I deleted that post because in retrospect, it was insulting and I apologize.

You are correct the transcript was a snapshot of a very active period of negotiations. You are correct that we've used the same bargaining process. (and I suspect C96 was our first real deep exposure to this process, based on the consultants Ron Allen brought in for that negotiation)

Moving forward, we would benefit by making scope inviolate. By not empowering our CNC to even discuss further outsourcing. Some (not me) have even suggested moving scope negotiations to National to avoid any MEC being enabled to trade job security provisions.

Management (and the NMB) understand a union's obligation to protect jobs. IMHO making a moral stand on this issue is easy to communicate, effective and builds unity. The ALPA leader who rediscovers "unity" and understands how to achieve it using scope is going to be a powerful force. (I'll volunteer to be their speech writer)

With regard to IBB, there is no way to remove it entirely from negotiations. As you point out, when it comes to allocating monetary items the logic is sound and the NMB lists IBB among their "tools." IBB is not going away. My modification would simply be to remove scope from being an "Interest" we could "Bargain." To be effective this change really needs to be done at National, since these NMB Arbitrators look around our competitors and benchmark our activities based on their negotiations. We lead National.

To the credit of our MEC at the time, they did a great jobs with:

• Making it clear Delta pilots could operate those airplanes and offered to work with management on building that economic model
• Negotiating pay rates on 100 seat aircraft (even if management did that to cap DCI bargaining)
• ... and I will defer to you on the issue of 79 to 76 seat jets.