These kinds of arguements always crack me up. Tell me, if UA came after us, what do you think the difference would have been between us being with ALPA or not?

Let me help you out. Negligible. This was one of the scare tactics the union used to sell this POS.

Did you know that SCOPE was one of the first items agreed to by the company. Did you ever ask yourself why that is? They fought tooth and nail for the littlist things, but gave that section away. Hmmm...

Is this your first Airline?

Yours? Don’t be obtuse. This isn’t your dad’s M&As anymore. Study the recent mergers and arbiters decisions and come back to the discussion educated.

It wasn’t meant to be insulting. You screen name would suggest it.
History doesn’t back you up. Alpa has a procedure for mergers, “values committees” do not. You’re speaking from a position of guessing how things may go.

You can’t seriously think we were better off without scope language and defined relationship with the company?

We WERE alpa during the AIP/TA vote. ALPA merger policy and McCaskill Bond would have guided a pre-CBA merger and we wouldn’t get fleeced any worse than we would under this CBA. If something like UAL were to happen then or now, we would/will get fleeced in an SLI. If it’s a merger of equals it’ll be pretty straight forward, regardless. And there would be no stapling. So saying that a yes vote for something that is largely substandard in other areas (not just pay rates like you claim the 26% is ****ed about) is justified by having merger protections is laughable.

Exactly.........

Picking two airlines is in no means random because which two you chose can and most likely will have very different outcomes.

As folks are mentioning ALPA merger policy will cover two carriers that are ALPA but as soon as one airline isn’t ALPA then it will change greatly. As in American-APA, and Southwest-SWAPA. The most recent being AirTran and Southwest. Ask them how that went.
And American doesn’t have the best history of being fair, to anyone other than AA pilots.

Of course it does. I was more referring to His reference to scope. Do you remember the 5 documents? Is that the iron clad protection that would have held up in terms of scope? United has Terrible Scope protection, and right now, UAL is asking for scope relief in some areas. I'll take all the protections we can get.

My reference to SCOPE was that we had the protection and didn't need to vote for the TA in order to "hurry up and get it". But that's not how it was sold, nor was it how many of the guys I flew with interpreted it since I heard all the time, "It's not great, but I wanted some protection because we don't know how long this will last if we vote no on this TA."

Ignorance combined with scare tactics. Special, special group we have here at B6.

Bless your heart.