Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver

That argument pops up from time to time and I believe it is a red herring.

What if our reps and MEC bureaucrats believe this is the best they can do but at the same time recognize that it is unacceptable to the pilot group. What to do? Take a proposal to the negotiating table that you THINK won't be acceptable and that you THINK the big bad wolf (NMB) will blow your house down over? Or take a proposal to the negotiating table that is well below what is acceptable to your pilot group and then try to sell us on the idea that it was the best we could do and there is unacceptable risk in voting it down? Which sounds more like what we've experienced before?

This is just my opinion, but I think a lot of these guys (reps and bureaucrats) get so caught up in the minutia and in their own world of challenges that they lose sight of principle and the big picture. I don't think any (or at least most) of them want anything less than the most we can get. Sure it effects them! But I think many of them are so caught up in their world of proactive engagement that they don't want to do anything to possibly jeopardize that. It's not hard for management's professional negotiators to figure out who they're dealing with, what motivates them, and what scares them.

Getting a restorative contract and reeling in scope is NOT going to be easy. It will involve risk. None of us got to where we are by avoiding things that are difficult and by taking zero risk. Let's not get so caught up in the size of the challenge we face that we give up. Just my 2 cents...