Wow. You are an absolute ****ing moron if you think this deal costs United more money.

I believe there were several ALPA emails detailing this specific point. And outlined at several LEC meetings. Yes, it is costing the company more money to agree to the LOA than furlough. This is what they are willing to pay to have the flexibility for recovery. Please educate yourself.

yes it is a fact that this LOA is costing United more money than a furlough.....by a bunch.

Have you ever made a contribution that doesn’t involve an insult and or incendiary comments?

He doesn’t get any of those emails.....because he doesn’t work here.

Yeah, costs so much UAL stock went up 5% as soon as it was passed.

He may be on to something. In fact, despite demand being a total shambles I’d expect Warren Buffett to imminently buy back in based on this TA passing.....:rolleyes:

Yeah, the MEC said so, it must be true. I mean Americans stock getting hammered when they gave their employees a raise surely can’t be linked. Investors love paying employees and carrying excess cost.

Got nothing for your greed accusation there?

What more is there to say?

Any idea how much more it cost United vs a straight furlough? Does it cost United $1000 more or $1B more? Both cost the company more. No one seems to know. In fact, no one seems able to place a value on anything in this agreement.