I think what we have seen with unions, regardless of which one, is that they are giving up work. Sometimes in bankruptcy, a Judge may give it up, but with a company making millions, or in this case, billions, I don't think it is a question of either/or, or over/under. It ought to be both/and. Cutting outlying stations/work for a bigger buck for those in the hubs is a taxation on all. Just because it doesn't look like the hubs got taxed doesn't mean they didn't.
Consider the United contract. 7 stations with scope. The company's opening proposal in 2018 will be 4 stations. I'm not a prophet but that's what the opening proposal may be, if not 3. So, even though DEN, IAD, or LAX may feel comfortable now, they are now on the bubble. Let's keep stations off the bubble and bring unionism back to "One for All and All for One" because when we give up work, it's one less member and makes us weaker. So, why not look at expanding scope and not doing so without 'cost neutral' trading? Gaining work in good times is what our focus should be. I think we can go back to that. Will it be tough? Of course, but that should be our vision.
Alright but my question to you did gain jobs by bringing back cabin and mail. The jobs are now in the hubs though instead of the outline stations. Losing those two jobs in MIA alone was about 400 people. Now let's say we had hundreds more in all the other hubs so even after the station closures you actually have a net gain of jobs. They are just jobs that are condensed to specific locations. Would you find something like that to be satisfactory?
That said, I realize MIA, or CLT, or PHL, or ORD may have a different opinion, but my opinion is that losing stations has already affected them as well.
Under BK we lost stations and jobs although a lot of it was mitigated with the EBO.
