Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatNavy
How'd you guys do holding the line on WB scope in TA16? I know you think it's just 48.5 to 46.5 and may not be a problem at all (i read your DL forum post and have lots of DL friends), but if the company didn't want it and didn't see upside to it (for them, not you), they wouldn't have stuck it in there. At least there won't be more jumbo RJs flying for DCI. That's a plus. Thanks (honestly) for raising the bar for the rest of us with pay. I just wish scope, touted by you as the most important part of any pilot contract, wasn't sold...not even one Atlantic crossing a day.
Its not as simple as that. The 48.5 remains. The only thing that was changed was an option to go as low as 46.5 on the trans atlantic JV, but only if at that point 650K global block hours were also protected, which was WAY more than otherwise would have been. But more importantly, the 2% drop would then have to be measured yearly and always be in compliance, as opposed to a 4 year period that only has to be in compliance one year every 4.
So to say it was a simple "selling" of 2% in that one JV isn't what happened at all. Now that said, I still think our scope, pre TA and post TA, is lacking in that area. I'm not against international JV's, and honestly you'd have to be an idiot to think a US airline could fly the globe like its 1960 with no foreign partners. Not going to happen, not now not ever again. JV's are vital. But they need to be structured to protect our side of them. The TA scope makes more improvements in that area than it gives up. But we still have way more work to do.
The jumbo RJ growth was smacked down, and SEA was at least protected from future non Alaska poaching. That was more a tying up of a loose end so it couldn't bite us later than it was a current scope improvement, but every little bit helps.