That was kind of my point in asking the question. I hear a lot of hard core "I ain't gonna give..." I think that if viewed in the context of the whole contract as a package, there is very little that is a single issue absolute "no" vote. JMHO. Frankly, it is foolish to say that there is. It is very noble to say that scope is a non starter, but I am not willing to take a payCUT to ensure that scope is recaptured or halted or whatever the issue is to ensure that that single issue "no" vote is avoided. Sorry if that sounds selfish, but that's my honest opinion. And while some might say that is a ridiculous postulation, I offer this: Remember the old joke about asking a woman to sleep with you for a million dollars? I have said this before, and I will say it again. EVERYTHING is negotiable. If you do not believe that, you are either naive or foolish. Either is tragic.

Now.. that being said, and Carl's asinine characterization of my personal... how did he say it? "Doesn't care about scope" stance aside, I have no intention of allowing any increase in the number of RJs that the company currently has available. Is it an automatic no vote however? Maybe, maybe not. For it to pass my personal test however, the sweetener better be pretty damned sweet.. and I am not talking about simply money. For example.. it might have to include something to the effect of "there shall be 1 "super premium widebody aircraft on the premises prior to the allowance of a single increase in the number of DCI flown jets... and furthermore, if any super premium jets are parked, sold, crashed, stolen or otherwise lost.. the RJs go back to their manufacturer"... or something of equal strength. I am not writing the TA. And all I am saying is that there are no absolutes... Personally, I am more concerned about tightening up the JV language than worrying about the dying RJ contingent at DAL...... fire away.