Oh, I know the awnser...NWA pilots (like all pre 9/11 mainline pilots) were in a all-out self preservation mode because of two factors. They were dependent on defined-benefit pensions, and the seniority system makes it very unattractive to start over at another Carrier.
I agree... but you're still not explaining to me what possible downside there could be to mainline pilots for achieving Brand Scope or list integration with their Airlinks. I'm waiting to see if you understand the perspective of the mainline pilots....a perspective that
pre-dated 9/11! Remember, the issue of Brand Scope was on the table
well before 2001. Take a minute to work that out in your mind, and get back to me.
To repeat: If it's such a good deal and an obvious no-brainer, what possible reason(s) could mainline pilots have for
not fighting aggressively for it?
It won't happen until
everybody understands that!
Don't ask me to put myself in your shoes until you can demonstrate you're capable of doing the same for me.
Couple of things to consider here. NWA was not going to liquidate if you voted no (see the price of the unsecured debt, plus Steland wouldn't get nearly as rich that way).
That's not the issue. The only question was whether the T.A. was better or worse than the alternative...an imposed deal. I think our F/A's have provided the answer to that question.
Second, with all the labor costs so reduced, NWA was not looking for scope relief to lower the operating costs of 76 seat airplanes, so much as they were looking to get a bigger stick to leverage you in the future.
I don't think you're as familiar with our Scope as I am...or what exactly was given up in the new contract. I appreciate your willingness to try to understand what our management was "
looking for" in our deal, but your conclusion is just flat
wrong.
You don't get it. Scope IS the "most important stuff"
Do tell. "
Scope" is like "
Aloha"...it has many meanings. If you're referring to successorship, wet lease, and fragmentation, I won't argue with you. If you're referring to Brand Scope, it's apparent that it is not as important as other items in the contract.
But your assertion reinforces my belief that you don't fully understand the issue. Tell me
WHY it isn't as important. You understand the benefit to you ("
you" being any Airlink pilot), and you understand the
potential benefit to mainline pilots...but your understanding of Scope will not be complete (
or relevant!) until you can show me you understand the cost and the liability.
How do you know what rate I am willing to fly a 76 seater for? We don't have a 76 seat rate, and I haven't had the opportunity yet to vote for ANY rate at this company.
My bad! I used an industry model. Let's agree that the trend appears to
downward across the industry...'kay?
PS, the rate I would vote YES to would have to be higher than what NW mainline pilots vote YES to fly the EMB190. A much larger aircraft. People in glass houses...
Good for you! I appreciate your willingness to draw-the-line and stop the downward trend. Since you haven't actually done that yet, can we agree that your unyielding committment is still
theoretical at this point?
(Please don't take that as a slam. Until your entire pilot group votes on any proposal, neither of us has any way of knowing what would happen)
As far as aspiring to your job... Not anymore. I can't afford it thanks to what your group voted yes to. If NWA gets EMB190's, and I got stuck as a FO on that airplane for more than a year or two, I couldn't pay the bills.
Alright! Now we're getting somewhere! You're showing me a glimmer of comprehension on the "risk" element! Follow that line of logic and see where it leads.
Thanks for engaging on this topic. I appreciate it.
Semper Fi!