Tim
Let me try to clarify for those that may have trouble understanding. As I said in a earlier post, we aren't looking to get a complete new exhaustive contract since the merger was announced. We feel as a committee, that certain things will be better addressed in joint talks. We have been saying this since the merger was announced. There are some specific things we feel we must get our members prior to moving to joint talks. Seniority protection was a must. Scope, while we have made what I consider a very good proposal for article 3 as a whole, the one thing we had to do prior to moving to joint talks was " stop the bleeding " of our jobs and cities. We must also get improvements on the financial side of things before moving to joint talks. Looking at the issues above, this past week, we accomplished what we must have in seniority and scope to get us to the joint talks. We still are working on the financial issues. This in no way means that we are satisfied with scope, it merely means, we got the protection we needed for fleet to get us to joint talks and address it there for the rest of the improvements. The company is very aware of our intent. It is my understanding that 142 is doing the same thing we are. Certain things must be met for them, prior to moving to joint talks. Your entitled to disagree with this approach, which I'm sure you will. Just keep in mind, according to your post about a year ago now, none of this was going to happen. We were going straight into joint talks without getting fleet anything. Now you want to disagree with what we are doing? Lol, I guess that's the beauty of these forums.