Heyas Bill,

I appreciate your comments, and we both want the same end-state, which is a great contract, we just simply disagree on how to get there. You're advocating slow & steady, like T.O., while I and others are advocating 'get it right the first time'. Put yourself on the other side of the agreement, on the side of management...when I do, I see a contract that meets my goals:

1) cost neutral
2) sets costs for the next 3 years for borrowing of capital
3) makes aircraft a 'pilot problem', when I know I'll do whatever makes economic sense for my fleet size & composition. It's all part of 'what will you give up if I add 717's and remove 50-seaters?'
4) sets a new normal for standard pay in a high profit environment for future negotiations
5) helps solve my pilot loss problem partially by making them work harder and calling it a raise
5) requiring a false sense of urgency in order to pass a substandard contract to take advantage of 'opportunities' that we as a company will do anyway.

Some things are worth fighting for to make it right. I'm fine with the current contract, especially the 70/76-seat limit. Heck, if this gets prolonged (which I doubt), they'll have to hire pretty soon because we aren't working harder under the current contract and they won't be able to increase outsourcing any more.

Bill, what were your limits you placed in the survey? How does it compare with this contract? Are you compromising the standard you set?