GuppyWN
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Posts
- 3,204
Or this one......
If you wish me to continue I will. Look brother, what you seem to fail to grasp is that I DON'T WANT THIS PLACE TO TURN INTO "LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE" but Gary Kelly is doing his darndest to over-ride my decison.
Gup
I mentioned in my letter of Wednesday that we no longer consider Section I TA’d. It’s not possible to have a TA if both parties don’t agree. And we don’t right now. As you know the Company had agreed to abide by language in Section I that was TA’d over a year ago. We were comfortable with that language. The Company subsequently submitted new language to modify Section I, not SWAPA. That proposal dealt with two issues that are addressed at length in my 11.15.08 RP article. Many of you have asked why we let that happen. We didn’t let it happen. In section six the entire agreement is on the table and can be readdressed by either party. I don’t like it that the Company wanted new language, but…and this is important, we intend to make further improvements in Section I language before we agree to any changes to language. In other words, what we will get will be better than we had. I think we will be successful but should we not, you will quickly know. It will be a turning point in negotiations and we will have to head down a road we haven’t traveled before. Your response to the announcement (overwhelmingly negative) is actually a positive. It will hopefully help our NC at the table.
If you wish me to continue I will. Look brother, what you seem to fail to grasp is that I DON'T WANT THIS PLACE TO TURN INTO "LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE" but Gary Kelly is doing his darndest to over-ride my decison.
Gup