Thanks for taking the time to write this up, GB. Everybody has now had time to trash and thrash around with this agreement to probably have made a decision.

I think it's become clear that most of the arguments supporting a yes vote center around fear of the unknown, and are not of actual support for this concessionary agreement. Yes, it is concessionary. Both pilot groups gave and gave for well over the last decade. I honestly believed that this would be a reckoning, and that both sides would be able to bring their strengths, and improve upon them. Instead we have a conciliatory blend that offsets "gets" with "gives" throughout, and is not being primarily judged by its tenets, but rather by fear of the unknown should it not be ratified.

That is not to say that some of those fears are unfounded, they are. I said in an earlier post that the MEC's were playing checkers while UCH was playing chess all along, and they effectively checked us with the TPA.

First because the document was unequal, by design, to bridge the gap between the two different cba's to provide similar protections. There really wasn't much for the CAL pilots as most of the language already existed in our CBA section 1.

Second, and the real crux, is the terminable date to key provisions for only one party to the TPA, sUA.

By not demanding that the TPA provisions be inextrolibly linked to the successful passage of a JCBA, both MEC's ceded the final move to UCH. Control the timeline, control the vote. By the inequities introduced by an expiring TPA, we are a house divided, and, as a group, are not able to objectively evaluate the JCBA by its own merits. We are leveraged, and ALPA provided the wedge.