VB had a time limit attached that the company totally missed. The pulldown was a unilateral option for both sides and executed properly.

Why are you still trying to apply the butt salve. Aren't you retired living the Florida dream? Shuffleboard anyone?
https://www.cvs.com/bizcontent/merch...,aspect=ignore

Your comment was:

“But what exactly would anyone think they can put in the contract to force the company to open and staff other bases?”

Virtual Bases, while ultimately not implemented, were 100% written into the contract that was ratified.

Just like the company refusing to give PS after reroutes and just like the company reinterpreting a commute policy, there will always be some concession to give because like it or not commuters are pawns. They are an easy pressure point to target to get anything in the PWA. No thank you. Why not section 1 or section 3? You already lost when you agree to play the 0 sum gain game.

Yeah, we were. It was mostly pettiness by our union.

Can you expand on this?

It's already been discussed. There was a lengthy thread about it on here a few years ago. Pretty sure you said the same things back then, and were excoriated for it then, as you are now.

If you must, one word summation - unilateral.

That's your interpretation. Not mine.

So the negotiated extension was fake?

Right, but virtual bases were NOT permanent and could be shifted all around at any time. That’s NOT the same as opening a new base.

When you open your thought with concession, you are now part of the problem, not the solution.