Yes but he's referring to a future JV agreement. The danger in relaxing our current language is you can take the Europe scenario and rubber stamp it for Asia with nearly identical metrics. And that is something they could actually achieve if precedent was set with this new language. Very dangerous. Delta Holdings Int'l, here we come.

It's not even just 4 yrs out of compliance. As stated by the NC at the PTC RS, we have NEVER been in compliance.

So to recap:

From NEVER been in compliance to day after TA is signed and Voila!... We're in compliance! Yay!

Sounds like a good plan to me. :rolleyes:

Seriously?

We aren't seeing the details of this JV settlement. Makes me think that it is contingent upon this new TA being voted in. Even though they are supposed to be "totally separate" right? Our union doesn't have the backbone to hold their feet to the fire so we keep drawing a new line in the sand.

My big issue above all else is the permitted foreign alter egos. This contract could have a 50% pay raise and I'd still have to vote no. As someone who has seen their use first hand I can tell you that is what you'll need to be focused on.

Sailing,
Your argument implies that the environment was such that no carrier could grow in the Atlantic JV route structure during that time period. Did that hold true during the 4 year period, was there no trans-Atlantic growth for any other carrier?