Originally Posted by
Splash
I'm getting a clearer picture here of your disconnect.
MY disconnect? That's quaint.
Originally Posted by
Splash
You're not connecting comments about Joint Ventures, small jets, alliances, slot swaps, AerLingus, and code-share, as "Scope".
Of course they're all Scope. Nobody has ever said anything to the contrary.
Originally Posted by
Splash
You're not equating the 2.7% increase in mainline flying, along with the purchase of additional mainline jets - to the 2.7% reduction at our regionals, and the parking of over 100 RJs.
Those are all Scope.
OK. Now I see your disconnect. None of this has to do with Scope. The increase in mainline flying is a management decision based on profits. The parking of RJ's also has everything to do with the current profitability of those aircraft...NOT our Section 1. If the profitability equation of those RJ's changes, our Section 1 would allow every one of those aircraft right back to the operation. Again, it's all about what management considers profitable...not our current Section 1.
Originally Posted by
Splash
Tell us what talk your hearing from our reps or the MEC about reducing Scope. Anybody even suggesting it?
I'm hearing nothing about Scope at all. Scope is apparently a forbidden word to use from our elected reps. As such, there is no way to know where they stand on either strengthening Scope, or reducing Scope. At this point, they are simply not saying.
Carl