Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

Wish I could have been there too TC. But I take issue with what I've bolded above and would ask you to consider this carefully. There is such a thing as a poison pill in a contract. You may have struck the best deal in the world for selling your home...way above market price with a quick closing while the new owners give you all the time you wish to move out. You even get to come back anytime you want for visits. But there's one teeny little sentence in there...just one. It says that you still have to pay the mortgage for the new owners. Now the totality of the agreement is incredible - but how about that one little sentence?

Delta's C2K contract looked good in its totalilty at the time. But there WAS a poison pill in it whereby more large RJ's were accepted. That single provision allowed for furloughing thousands of our brother pilots while the regionals hired thousands.

I know this will sound hard headed by me, but no matter how good this TA ends up looking (and it already is concessionary), all that good is nullified if we allow more 76 seat jets to be flown by non-Delta pilots. That is our poison pill. If we send the TA back to the negotiating committee with a single note saying: "We're fine with this except remove the allowance of any more 76 seaters"...and the company turns us down flat and walks away, you'll understand EXACTLY what management's plan was. If you vote to allow it, you'll soon learn EXACTLY what management's plan is.

Carl - the hard head.