If the non-cons actually care enough to complain about something, then management listens. When its just the pilots..talk to the hand. Why scope hasn't been an "all employee" concern/demand is a wasted opportunity to apply some leverage.

What are everyone’s thoughts of the negotiators comments in the latest FAQ email regarding global scope?

I think most of us have our minds made up either way, so this com isn’t going to sway the vote.

To us skeptics the arguments for not including NB or Canada/Mexico don’t hold water. I still think those should have been included. Specifically their worry that including our NB would somehow lower our WB requirements just sounds like lazy negotiation to me. WB and NB could have been segregated from each other.

I think the argument is more that they could use NB to fulfill “our” end of the JV, which we specifically did not want to allow.

I don’t think that was case.
More like 1:1 NB growth would favor the foreign airlines compared to our fleet plans.

My take is that the basic premise was to protect widebody jobs and have a better (for us) resolution to violations which result in widebody jobs for those that would have been awarded them in the first place versus a literal handful of dollars spread across the group. I think Fangs is right that we wouldn't want a NB to have any opportunity to fulfill our end of the equation. I'm sure any effort to count NB flying only on the other side of that equation, but not on ours, was met with a brick wall. Same as it would have been by us in the reverse scenario.