Boisemedic

The way you profess on this board about everything, I assumed you were an O'Melveny & Myers or Ford & Harrison Attorney.

Turns out you may not be afterall- a code share covers a Capacity Purchase Agreement. If you were a scope attorney, or attended a road show, you would know that.

See, I don't mind differing opinions-I actually like it. I think debate and discussion makes us stronger and a better democratic society.

What I can't stand, is people who try to influence others through fear or misinformation while pretending to be an authority figure on the subject matter.

Quit trying to scare people on scope. You don't know what you are talking about. That language was written for lawyers and arbiters by lawyers and modeled after the UAL agreement. Again, if you had attended a road show, you'd know that.

lowandslow

It’s sooooo shiny!

Qotsaautopilot

I did notice that CPA was covered in one of the FAQs that came out after the post you quoted me on. Fact is the only thing that is inforcable is what’s in print and that term is not in the TA unless I missed it.

I give them the benefit of the doubt that CPA can be enforceable under the codesharing PARAGRAPH. That would mean CPAs are unlimited.

I don’t try to profess I’m the authority figure. I read the contract as if I’m both a pilot and then I read it as if I’m John Bendoritis.

I have been clear that there are very real wins in this TA all around. I haven’t even really said much negative about section 25 which is concessionary. The scope in this contract is absolutely better than what we have now. There is no doubting that. I’ve even said I would probably have voted for it if scope was solid. I said that as early as the AIP was released even though it’s industry lagging in almost every section.

JB has actively hired SCABs in his history. He was the principle negotiator that stalled us on this for three years. My opinion is that I would much rather close the couple of holes we have while we have the leverage of staffing the summer flying season than giving them another 5+ years to get creative on using those holes to screw us. This is not unreasonable.

There has only been road shows in two bases thus far.

FLBusDrvr

It’s not shiny. It’s money.

MGMTiswatchingU

STOP AND THINK

For those who have "vote this thing in and start the clock again for next negotiations" as a reason to vote yes, stop and think. You are rushing to vote in a contract in order to start the clock for a next contract? What?!?!? A contract is open NOW for a chance to get a better contract NOW, why put it off for 7 more years?. Leave the future for the future, as everyone on here says, "no one knows what the future holds".

No need to rush into what you'll experience for the next 7 yrs. Ensure you are getting the best contract now so when the clock starts again you have 7yrs of decent QOL and pay and not needing to even worry about when the next contract will come. It's gonna be either:
1) You guys sitting comfy and in no rush to ratify another contract in 2025 or
2) Management sitting comfy when they get all the concessions they need from this TA therefore having all the reason to drag out a next negotiation in the future.

The choice is yours Today

If you think mgmt wont drag out another contract negotiation again, then you deserve to be bamboozled.

PS. Sorry for posting this on multiple forums, had to get the word out. Just stupid to have that as a reason.

YourMom

You keep posting this over and over almost as much as Quotsa screams about scope...

MGMTiswatchingU

Yeah I know, I apologize. Its just stupid to have that as a reason (what I posted).

TransWorld

Indeed. Not only is it annoying, it is a good way to get banned. — Unless you are trying to get banned!!!

MGMTiswatchingU

Again sorry, had to get the word out.

Ed Force One

Maybe so, but he's right.

A 5 year contract is 25% below Industry Standard.