Ideally yes, but the company though negotiations wants wording a certain way, the negotiators want it a different way, and the lawyers for both sides want to totally protect their clients.

Our lawyers give us sound legal advice on these matters, but as with everything it is their legal opinion, the company has another and negotiations ensue on final language.

Fact is that for many years here at DAL the language did not need to be perfectly spelled out. DAL88 and I went back and forth on this about the DCI paint livery. The reality is there was no need, but the world has changed, and we need to start making the language a lot tighter. When have been shown that the way we used to do business leaves to much room for legal maneuvering. That is the environment we live in.

I know that I will be very wary of voting yes for any agreement that does not have final language written. The language and the intent need to be known. We have gotten dinged a few times on that since 2005. Its time to listen to the legal advice and tighten up the language. Simple as that.

Oh and their suggestions always always always are to our benefit. They want us to succeed, but it is always a four party talk between us, our legal team, DAL and theirs. The other side wants maneuvering room, and until recently had not taken that room for a spin.