How does the text above, which you've included in quotation mark, even come close to what the actual language stated?


The C20 Chairman didn't say, or I'm not seeing it in the text above, that the membership would "never" see the opener. Where are you reading the word, "never" Carl?

You're implying from the text that you'd never see it, and putting words into the C20 Chairman's Letter, and ultimately "union mouth".

Sorry again, but the opener will be shown, and you misunderstood the letter.

GJ

Carl,

Gearjerk is "one word" not two!:D

GJ

Not interested in getting involved in this debate, but as a DGAS (Don't Give A Shiite) observer of this latest debate I must say Carl's paraphrase appears to be pretty much in line with the C20 letter.

It appears there is a difference from the C20 letter and TO's letter. Who knows what any of this will bring...

In the end, it's the final product that matters!

Conceptual Opener?
 

“We do want more, and when it becomes more, we shall still want more. And we shall never cease to demand more until we have received the results of our labor.”
--Samuel Gompers (First President of the AFL)

One has to admire his blunt honesty about the matter.

Possibly, and that's fine.

A fragmentation of anyone wouldn't require us to liberalize our scope. If some kind of deal was necessary to bring pilots aboard outside of their own scope (i.e. for operational integrity reasons so as not to ground new airplanes, etc) that would be a case by case scenario anyway and a broad based section 6 relief would be completely out of order.

If Hawaiian (or Alaska) were a possibility, again, that would be a merger. Period. No scope liberalization required.

Small jet order requiring "scope relief"? If that's what they bring us that is the final straw and we need a new union. Period.

Agreed. They bring a lot to the table and sooner is better for everyone than later. All they have to do is run a handfull of new hire classes (or one big class) and the whole list if buffed 20%, 30% or more and will keel haul us in a relative integration with new hired jumping 12 year guys on our side. And I really don't see how scope relief plays into this situation anyway.

I'm also concerned about something like that. I want to be cautiously optimistic, but we all need to be sniffing for a rat on this one. There is NOTHING the company can afford to give us that will justify scope relief. Moreover, merely "holding the line" on scope is unacceptable and insufficient. Scope recapture at all levels to some significant degree must occur or NO DEAL.

Like "SWA W-2's plus reasonable premiums for small narrowbody planes and up proportionate from there, significant scope recapture at all levels (DCI, AS, JV's), big time improvements to rigs and min day, and dramatic improvements to vacation, sick and training pay?

Cause anything else just doesn't seem very "conceptual" to me.

Unless it reduces our slots, how is it a bad thing for DL?

So what if they want this. Where exactly do they have the leverage to get us to agree to something like this?

Maybe management and ALPA will ask us to help fund new Haneda slots in return for crew meals? Let's take pay cuts so we can fly more Tokyo and eat dried turkey sandwiches and large Snickers bars. (large ones, not small Snickers!)

Haneda is downtown Tokyo. Narita is about 50 miles away. There are restrictions that force most international flights out of Narita. We have a hub in Narita. If the Japan airlines all move to Haneda, our Narita flights just became obsolete. Unfortunately, we have a lot of them.