I don't have a dog in the fight, but I did note, as many of y'all have before, that the article still said the order "will be" cancelled, not "has been" cancelled.

Further, it is hard for me to imagine Boeing agreeing to a contract contingent on a pilot contract being passed.

In the long run, if they are cancelled, it may backfire for RA, as he probably got a deal on the jets that won't be offered again ... In other words, Boeing may treat him as he has threatened to treat all y'all! :D

Quote of the day!:D

Im also tired of the "yes" voters telling me that by voting no we lost a chance to bring those planes to mainline.....
Under our current contract those planes can only be flown by mainline!!!
They could outsource them to Skywest to fly for Alaska "Express" and them use them as codeshare since Alaska does not have scope, but they could have done that anyway with TA2015, since it still does not classify SEA as a hub for us and we have no protections there

I haven't seen anyone say we lost the chance to have 190s at mainline. We did lose this particular chance. I've said it before- There was plenty to dislike about the TA without the distorting that was done. There were also gains, however small we considered them to be, that were on the table. I didn't really care for the downplaying them as if we would get them anyway. The 190s/717 are just easy examples.

You'll notice that the "they're coming anyway" crowd has quickly pivoted to "who cares about those little planes, I don't want to fly them. And they didn't pay enough anyway." The exact attitude that a large number of us feel (or used to feel, apparently) led to the entire outsourcing debacle in the first place.

This is exactly what has to happen, process-wise, but the legalese is worth noting. For one, those orders have not been cancelled (they "will be canceled"). Second, RA said "those" orders will be cancelled. From a lawyer, that does not mean "new" orders cannot replace them. Basically, RA's statement means nothing, it is purely a negotiating tactic to divide or intimidate us. I am surprised, though, that ALPA hasn't sent an email admonishing us for "losing" those aircraft.

I haven't seen anyone say we lost the chance to have 190s at mainline. We did lose this particular chance. I've said it before- There was plenty to dislike about the TA without the distorting that was done. There were also gains, however small we considered them to be, that were on the table. I didn't really care for the downplaying them as if we would get them anyway. The 190s/717 are just easy examples.

You'll notice that the "they're coming anyway" crowd has quickly pivoted to "who cares about those little planes, I don't want to fly them. And they didn't pay enough anyway." The exact attitude that a large number of us feel (or used to feel, apparently) led to the entire outsourcing debacle in the first place.

I'm liking the FAT tab now included in the SCL so far.

The 190 order has not been cancelled.

All that was said was a short, terse, "will be cancelled." They got blindsided and don't really know how to handle this currently while saving face.

The options for the wiener dogs (739s) are still there and they will come one way or the other as well.

Has anyone mentioned that RA might just be setting you guys up to release 90 seat scope in round 2??

You will get the raises and work rules you want if you let him fly those E190's with 90 seats (first class, Delta comfort, coach) at Endeavor or Skywest.

That version of a TA would get shot down 80/20.

I'd be willing to bet we'll see a tweaked TA shot back out to us in the next couple weeks.