Search

Notices

Scope Language out

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 02-19-2023 | 09:34 AM
  #101  
saturn's Avatar
Line Holder
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,147
Likes: 41
From: Supreme Allied Commander
Default

Originally Posted by Baradium
The union has already said there is no more leverage to force a global scope agreement. It is unlikely to be revisited if this is declined.
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.
Reply
Old 02-26-2023 | 12:31 PM
  #102  
Viper25's Avatar
Line Holder
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,445
Likes: 284
Default

What are everyone’s thoughts of the negotiators comments in the latest FAQ email regarding global scope?
Reply
Old 02-26-2023 | 01:03 PM
  #103  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 1,104
Likes: 6
From: 737 A
Default

Originally Posted by Viper25
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.
Reply
Old 02-26-2023 | 03:22 PM
  #104  
FangsF15's Avatar
Moderator
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 8,209
Likes: 1,161
Default

Originally Posted by Vsop
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.
Reply
Old 02-26-2023 | 07:32 PM
  #105  
Line Holder
10 Years
 
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,995
Likes: 176
Default

Originally Posted by FangsF15
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.
Reply
Old 02-27-2023 | 06:10 AM
  #106  
Hillbilly's Avatar
Line Holder
 
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 972
Likes: 1
From: 7ERA
Default

Originally Posted by FangsF15
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.
Originally Posted by Planetrain
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.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Guard Dude
Delta
201736
04-06-2022 06:59 AM
nwa757
American
178
01-10-2015 10:54 AM
APC225
United
81
05-04-2013 07:08 AM
B1900YX
Major
50
10-14-2010 06:30 AM
AAflyer
Major
101
03-27-2010 06:39 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices