That may be true NOW, but there is no way to predict B6’s future. Once you give away Scope, you never get it back without losing several pounds of flesh. It really wasn’t in play this round, but it had to be protected.

 

yea, we should have just taken no scope. we could have gotten like $5/hr more and profit sharing.

 

We already have a big RJ operation and yes it was a huge win for the MEC. One of the few we got on CBA 1.0 but a big one none the less, we will see how 2.0 goes in 2022.

 

So we had a choice between scope or a higher rates? News to me. Sounds like you are creating a false narrative of a choice to justify your yes vote and rewrite the history of our TA. Company didn’t want outsourced RJs. Period. If they did they would have done it before we had a CBA. Therefore that piece of scope didn’t take much negotiating capital. But sure, keep pushing N8’s narrative that they would outsource all our RJs if we voted no. Or that we couldn’t achieve a better CBA unless we sold scope. That simply isn’t true.

 

Easy to criticize scope when times are good.

We hedged our bets. Plain and simple. Lock it up while we can because like others said you can’t reclaim scope. See United fighting tooth and nail for 76-seaters and Kirby is literally telling them NO WAY.

I don’t care what our business model is today. It won’t be the same in 10 years.

Some of you military folks who have never been affected by an economic downturn or regional rat race will probably never understand. But go talk to the Airways and Delta guys and ask them how it feels to be furloughed while you see brand new 76-seat airplanes be delivered to a wholly owned or worse a non union airline. Your option? Go work for $30/hr there.

Some of you have such thick skulls I wonder how you even absorb information at all.

So we can revisit this thread in years if history calls for it, but if our scope somehow saves your job and your house and feeds your kids, you can thank that MEC and pilots who realized how important it really is/was.

We can argue the merits of the rest of contract until we are blue in the face, but Section 1 will ALWAYS be a non-starter.

 

We didn’t vote on only one section. We voted on an entire CBA (which was lacking). The whole tone of the NC/MEC during most of the negotiations was “quality over speed.” Even in the labor dispute times. Until the AIP. Then it was “we have to vote this in at all costs because scope and mergers and downturns.” We are now 1.5 years post AIP. In this time we wouldn’t have regional feed and would most likely have achieved TA2. As you said, we can argue the merits of the entire CBA ad nauseum. But you don’t vote yes over one section, or over fear. Everyone should have simply voted over whether or not the CBA has a high enough overall value to warrant a yes vote. And if your mil comment was directed at me, I was at a bottom feeder regional working under a bankruptcy contract. I am a fierce advocate of scope. But I’m also not going to vote on a substandard CBA because of scope, when the fear being spread by N8 was unfounded and part of his agenda to get his baby approved.

 

I don't recall anyone saying that it isn't good that JB pilots locked out RJ scope. Literally NO ONE said that. Not a single person has said that scope should have been traded for something else either. Has not been said.

With that said, scope was agreed to early and without much/any negotiating capital because the company got what THEY wanted (virtually unlimited domestic codeshare (to be used in the future, standby) and virtually unlimited international codeshare). And the company gave up NOTHING that they saw value in... The company operates in some of the highest cost, most gate and slot restricted airspace/airports in the world, and they do so under a low-cost business model, at a time in history when we are all approaching a shortage of qualified pilots... The company has CLEARLY been in an ***UP***-gauging trend for several years. There is literally NOTHING that makes sense about JB running an outsourced RJ network.

That was never really a threat. Now domestic codeshare on the other hand...

With that said, yes I do think it is great to have RJs locked out, no matter how remote the possibility is/was. I would have strongly preferred, in addition, to see stronger restrictions on domestic/international codeshare.

But understand that big "win" cost the company nothing from their current or future business plans. And cost them nothing from their Treasury.

Which all means it is/was illogical to achieve less in other sections because of this "win". Remember, the company agreed early to this scope section... Because they got what they wanted and gave NOTHING they didn't want to give. Who "won" in that case exactly?

 

Agreed. We didn’t vote on a single section. But scope was a deal breaker for a large amount of YES voters.

Military comment was not at you. I was simply making a generalizing statement that military folks have a hard time understanding the importance of scope.

I don’t know Nate, have never met him, but I also don’t believe a normal line pilot understands how tense airline negotiations work. You can’t just stomp your foot and complain like children. A mediator will accuse you of negotiating in bad faith and your leverage drops drastically. So, I think we should acknowledge that.

 

Again - an open Section 1 leaves us vulnerable. So in my opinion we WON that. I don’t care what the company thinks. They will have to fight very hard to bust our scope, yesterday, today and in the future. So “WIN” is yet to be determined.

The question isn’t whether the company valued it 3 years ago. It’s will the company value it in the future? You buy life insurance when you are healthy. It doesn’t hold much value while you are alive. Sure it helps you sleep at night, but the value lies upon your death. I see scope as the same. No value today, but could pay off the in the future.

Your comments on the domestic and international codeshare and cross-ticketing stuff are good points. And the company has carte blanch autonomy as long as the airline isn’t shrinking. So yes that is a real threat and a hole.

 

Domestic narrow body code-sharing only "pays pennies on the dollar."

Yes, it does. With zero risk.

We have nearly $8 billion in revenue and generate 5 cents on every dollar.

Is brand neutral the future?