S/T~

I see your point...."Just as many Chiefs as Indians" in the MEC ratification. Not only do we have one MEC 'fine toothing' any TA that comes down the pike, but we'll be required to have two/both MEC's in agreement in order to send the TA out for vote by the combine Pilot Group.

On the flip side, this JCBA should NOT be passed on the premise of "We'll get'em on the next one". Stating the obvious, this is going to be the leverage of all leverages concerning the construction of a CBA, probably the most leverage we'll see in our careers from this point forward barring any Legacy v Legacy Mergers. I hear what you're saying about the 'many hands in the pot' when ratifying, but it's the methodology that was set forth on the original TPA several months ago.

I think (hope) we'll be in full agreement on ONE topic that needs to be sliced/diced/dissected to the n-th degree.....The SCOPE, entire Section 1. This section needs to be gone through by EVERY MEC REP with a fine tooth comb (multiple times) prior to even discussing it's merits amongst each other in 'round table'. NO EXCUSES this time around, lock it down.

As far as "Know Thy LEC Reps"......"It Rings No Truer Than Now".