Also, 27 years left and this issue won't be an issue?

1. 27 years is a lot of contract iterations... How many pilot groups in history have never given up RJ scope in a negotiations? 1? Company dangles a huge carrot and 51% of the Walnuts go for it, not possible?

2. Merge with Alaska which has RJs and NO scope. Arbitrator rules that scope must allow the existing RJs, not possible? Or, joint CBA negotiations and the company dangles a huge carrot and 51% of the Walnuts from both groups go for it, not possible?

3. JB is acquired by DL, UAL or AA, game over. Not possible?

4. JB files for bankruptcy, judge rules the company can subcontract RJs... not possible?

5. Moxy starts a large West coast operation and unlimited domestic codeshares with JB and JB abandons it's promise to growth on the West coast. Your seniority would be a fraction of what it could/should have been. Same goes with an unlimited domestic codeshare with Alaska. Allowed and DEFINITELY an "issue". Not possible?

6. Skywest offers an at-risk RJ network to JB and agrees to structure it as a codeshare. Allowed and possible. Not possible?

Not to mention the virtually unlimited international codeshare.

27 years, this issue WON'T be an issue?

😁

 

I don’t think these LR/XLR’s will be touching ORD, EWR, PHL etc...before heading over the pond. I think Transatlantic OTP will and hopefully be stronger than the rest of the system.

 

This.
Our biggest OTP problem with long haul will be the misconnects in the system. But they’re planning for O&D traffic so that should be minimal.

At some point though they’re going to have to announce stuff... like where in Europe we plan to go. 😆

 

This indeed. The trans-atlantic flights will go largely one-time, but this mis-connects could be biblical. You may be underestimating how many connecting itineraries they are planning, but that's just my opinion.

 

Now out of those coulds which did happen that we both saw?

We will never have a first class everyone is equal.

We will only grow organically.

We won’t be like those other airlines and charge for bags.

 

Would you prefer we didn’t have scope? I guess we could have skipped it because in all of the above you suggest it’s pretty much worthless.

Dude I don’t know what will happen in 27 years but I feel better walking in with scope on the first contract.

It’s funny you come up with all of these things yet when I say the company could change business plans you say nope not buying it.

So it’s a theoretical one sided argument like what could have maybe happened if we voted no. I really don’t feel like playing that game. I don’t even know if I’ll be alive in 27 years and I’m not going to take the time (especially with you) (that’s not in a rude way) to try to debate every scenario.

Again we have scope it’s good. There is other stuff to work on.

Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying the contract needed to be done because of scope or anything like that. I as well as you knew that the company would most likely violate the contract day one. And it has. Or find a work around, this new coat. I’m just saying it not as worthless as some say. That’s all

 

In the history of M&A’s you really think on time % has been a pivotal factor in a decision? “We’d have merged with them but their on-time was 75% not 81%.”

Those #’s are already cooked into the books. And that’s that.

 

Nope they along with the pilots will probably be their own airline in an airline. If I was guessing.

 

You're talking about minor changes to the business plan here. Moving to start an RJ network would be trying to defy the laws of physics with respect to infrastructure and business plan.

And unicorns. And Jessica Alba nanny.

😁

 

To your first question, I have said:

"As I said, no JB pilot has suggested that RJ scope wasn't expected/demanded, but it's not a good justification for expecting/justifying a crummy CBA."

To this: "Dude I don’t know what will happen in 27 years..." You said you had 27 years left and that this issue wouldn't be an issue. That's the whole reason I wrote that long post.

And you say, you're glad we have scope. I say, it's partial scope, hence the content of the long post.