When the TA was initially released, my first reaction was HELLE NO. My main issue was--and is-- the pay rates. They are initially 6-7% below what I wanted. I took this as a personal affront. How dare they offer to pay us less than Southwest rates?

In reading this board, everyone seems to be mostly okay with the rates; scope is the big issue. This has caused me to reread Section 1. To me, it seems that scope is improved. The arguments on this board in support of the tentative scope clause seem to be more fact based, while the arguments against it seem to be more emotion based. Boomer's question about potential loopholes in Section 1 is, in my mind the central question. I strongly suspect I'm going to have to explore that one on my own in order to find an answer.

Alfa, you make a lot of sense, but your condescending tone is going to turn people off to what you have to say. Carl, I took you off "ignore" after the TA came out. While you started with some good, cogent arguments, your posts have once again become little more than ranting, innuendo, and name-calling. You'll probably be back on my ignore list soon (not that it matters to you).

Sailing, it seems like you're happy with everything but the rates. That's where I am. Is there more money available for that? Maybe. My concern is that we turn down this TA, and the NC is directed to go back to the company to improve scope...or sick leave...or something else that, in my opinion, was okay on the original TA.

If these subsequent negotiations don't result in a TA, then we've passed up an improved contract for nothing. We end up getting the same deal two years from now.

So now I'm left with deciding whether I'm going to play hardball just to put another $600/month (net) in my pay check. I'm increasingly thinking that the risk outweighs the reward.