The FDA wasn't negotiated for the 3% this year - it was for the 3% last year along with a year delay. This time it's the delay that is what we are giving up - and make no doubt about it, it is a delay. That's the whole point the Company agreed to it. It would make ZERO sense from their perspective (and they usually aren't idiots in this thing) otherwise. Regardless of how fruitful interim discussions are, we just delayed Section 6 by another year, and for that you get 3%. If they offered the same thing next year would you take it? What if the economy were exactly the same? If not, why not? I hear a lot of guys that say "oh, no we still want changes in work rules, accepted fares, etc." but they never answer that question. If the Company offered another 3'% to stay out of formal Section 6 (but by all means continue the "interim discussions") a year from now would you take it? What about in 2013?

The MEC voted the way the members wanted and that's great - especially when it was overwhelmingly one way but I'm not so sure that was the smart decision, even with the economy as it was. What was the big gain the Company got out of the 2006 contract? Their was no apparent leverage until we created it and that's the same way it'll happen next time around, not by the RLA or an impasse or self-help. Just my belief.