You are correct it was wrong of me to assume that most people are voting yes because of money (shiny object).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Yeah right. He scares people about scope because "He knows better" even though he's not a scope attorney and is nothing more than an armchair quarterback. But hey, he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

On a more serious note, I copied his questions that he said that Art hasn't gotten back to him on and I emailed them directly to him. He said he would be responding and getting back to him.

I hope he lets us know the response. If Art doesn't respond, then there is a problem and the NC isn't doing as they say they are. But given the amount of FAQ's that are coming out, seems like they are responding.

I suspect our music fan (his APC handle) is full of sh$t and never even emailed the NC and just gets some sort of thrill scaring people about crazy-a$$ scope scenarios that wouldn't make it out of business 101, let alone an airline business plan.

Yeah I'm being a d$ck but I get sick and tired of people pretending they are the experts and maliciously spreading false info to satisfy their own egos.

I heard the NC and our attorney say loud and clear the NMB would not entertain scope scenarios that were not realistic and based in fact. They helped us tighten up our scope in a meaningful and profound way to give us additional protections. How about we say thanks and move on.

Crafting up these doomsday scenarios just to scare the sh$t out of people is ridiculous and is without merit.

 

If you've never lost a job to poor scope then you wouldn't understand. The tighter it is, the better and his intentions have been nothing but pure.

Did I mention that the douche that told me how great my scope was, is also the douche telling you how great our new scope is. Forgive Qots for drawing up "doomsday" scenarios, cause they happen.

So yes, please stop being a "d$ck" cause he's not screaming some fallacy that if we vote 'no' we'll magically get everything in a new TA plus a rewrite of 25, a shorter contract term, no PBS, industry leading DC, profit sharing and pay.

Oh, and all in less than 90 days. You know, because "TA2 is already drawn up"... Lol

If this TA fails, we will fix one, maybe two things, but they won't be industry leading and it will come at a loss of cash.

 

Dude.. stop. You picked the wrong guy to go after. First off, he is one of the most consistent and honest guys on this entire forum. Second, and more importantly, he has impeccable taste in music.

As I said before... there are plenty of legitimate selling points for this TA. No need to belittle QOTSA’s legitimate concerns about scope. You can certainly argue whether or not it makes strategic sense to draw a line in the sand on scope as QOTSA has, but you cannot seriously toss out his concerns as trivial or conspiratorial.

 

If this guy is who I believe his handle suggests he is he would be laughed/shamed out of even apc.

 

So here is your official answer and don’t worry I don’t take it personal.

The TA scope is much much better than current book and if a merger is on the horizon we would be wise to accept it. I’ve said this before.

Now for outsourcing:

Codesharing is unlimited. Furlough protection with the block hour floor protection added in the TA. We can debate if that’s good or bad for the airline with the 99% to 1% profit structure that has been stated.

Capacity Purchase Agreements (CPA). These are the agreements most regional or fee for departure airlines like Skywest or TransStates operate under. We have furlough protection and the block hour floor protection added in the TA
These types of agreements are unlimited by the amount of airplanes or size of airplanes. If Spirit wants to enter into this type of agreement with Skywest or any other carrier for E175s, MRJs, C172s, A320s, 737s, 747, etc, they are free to do so without limit.

This straight from Art. I am not quoting him verbatim but the facts remain.

Again we can debate on if this type of agreement makes good business sense and the likelihood of Spirit executing such an agreement in the future. What we do know is that every legacy that has the ability to use these types of agreements does so all the way up to the max allowed by their pilots’ scope both in the amount and size of the aircraft. Alaska utilizes them and has no limit but has no not placed 737s at the fee for departure carriers just yet. Jetblue has no limit and flys E190s with seniority list pilots. Southwest does not allow this type of flying to be done.

Again, the TA is leaps and bounds better than our current agreement and that includes scope. Imo the above items are massive exposures as they are currently and many of our other exposures have been taken care of in the TA. There is an argument that the NMB will not support us in the fight for these items because Spirit has not ever used this before. We were also very cheap before. They went along with us on mergers because of the current state of the industry. I could say the same about outsourcing to fee for departure carriers.

On scope in a vacuum (which it is clearly not)
We vote yes and we mitigate a lot of risks and leave this little gem to fester for another 8 years.
We vote no and we remain exposed all over for an unknown but hopefully shorter period of time and still maybe don’t get what we want.

We each can decide I guess.

 

Thanks for sharing the info from Art and for seeking out information from those at the table.

I think debate is healthy and good and now that you've gotten your questions answered, I don't think there is anything wrong with you espousing your views for or against the scope TA.

Because now they are based on actual facts and on the merits of the proposal.

 

Oh I'm very familiar with scope. So yes I understand, but I appreciate what you are saying and agree in concept with you.

 

Two things you need to think about:
1. Do you think this company would ever want to start regional flying, or enter into a code share with flying we are capable of? If so explain why because I don't see it.

2. If this TA got voted down do you think the scope is what is going to be changed when we went back to the table? We already achieved some pretty big gains in scope as you said, and it doesn't seem to highest on most peoples gripe list.
All I'm saying is vote how you want, but realize that even if this TA fails, which I don't think it will, section 1 will probably remain. I would guess that the only changes we would receive would come to section 3 and in the end it would be at a financial loss.

 

Will Ferrell attends roadshow:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=948-2Vzgi3w