I'm not a payrate-first guy, and I like Section 1, so what you're highlighted is another reason I'm leaning towards yes. I essentially view the Section 3 language as a insurance. Great insurance for deflation, acceptable insurance for stagflation, and an opportunity to have to kick myself in the [deleted] for several months, as the company makes a killing, if the economy picks up, and inflation does too. In that case, the worst outcome is that the company is able to clean up its' balance sheet further, and perhaps renew the fleet.

In the last scenario, a stable company wouldn't stop us from getting upset that we failed to lock in enough gains, but then again, between the new FTDT, and a possible merger, I see additional opportunities to open the contract up. That's why I think that, if everything goes well, it would be a matter of months, not years before we can improve on C21012.

That makes the cost of this "insurance" TA much more affordable.