Originally Posted by tsquare

At some time in the future, a no vote might make sense. When our pay is on the top of the industry, and we have little downside risk in that no vote, I might agree with you. But it has been mathematically shown that in 6 short months, the damage done by saying no to this bite of the apple will cost us an additional 5% or more in the amount it will take just to get us back to where this TA takes us. From that standpoint, saying no for pay purposes defies logic. You are convinced that Mr Anderson NEEDS something from us because of his expedited timeline. While that may be true NOW.. and it might even be true 6 months from now, you do not KNOW that he will. Your no vote gambles a 20% pay increase in a little under 3 years. Again, that is foolish based on what you do not know. As Ferd says in his post.. Mr Anderson is like Patton, and you and I as the line grunts do not know the whole battle plan. And I don't know about others here, but I trust MR Anderson with his view of the big strategy than I trust a bunch of *****in' grunts with an agenda and no knowledge of anything outside their own little world.

Don't even get me started on the scope issue.. But let me ax you this.. if this scope proposal was the only thing on the ballot, would you go on strike over it? I wouldn't even consider it, and I'll betcha there are a LOT of others that agree with me on that. This scope is a clear win for this pilot group

Have fun.....