Denny;

More to the point. My position was the gains were not worth the quids. The downside protections were not as tight as I wanted them, and the work rule concessions concerned me with a possible SLI. I further stated that "most' of my section 1 concerns would not effect this group until at or beyond the amendable date. There are items we agreed to that we will want fixed, and that will cost future barging capital.

There are great concepts in the agreement, and good parts to it. Many of the no voters did not disagree with that statement. It was more about getting more than what we gave up, and not sacrificing the product for an early deal. In other words going with what the Master Chairman said.

Shiz, is right, we will have other opportunities to fix many of these items, but it will cost us leverage when we want to focus on pay. We will look for another scope modification in 215 without any real long term plan. If we can get it in 2015 like Dan V of the NC stated; awesome, I just seeing it taking up way too much bargaining capital then.

My no was for the strategic issues down the road, not for the buildup period over the next three years. We could not have fixed anywhere near everything we wanted with a quick deal, but we should not have conceded what we did for what we got. I will stand by that, even though 62% disagree with me. In the end this is our deal, and we will debate and discuss how to fix it going forward. That is a good thing!