What's entertaining to me is watching Joe Merchant/John Breiling posting like a maniacal chicken little on here and on the facebook page. Today, John's pal, LJ, posted her testimonial on why she's a yes voter. Here's what I remember about John and LJ from Contract 2007... THEIR TUNES HAVEN'T CHANGED A BIT!

Both of them were running around stating how we needed to take concessions to remain viable in the current (2007) market. Heck, LJ even tried to assemble a group of her peeps, known back then as the FAB 4, to take over the MEC in a coup of sorts and accept a concessionary contract from the company. Luckily for us, she failed and while the ensuing contract wasn't great, it was a heck of a lot better than it would have been if she had succeeded.

So here we are, still plugging along almost 7 years after JB and LJ swore that we were asking for too much in our last contract and that the company wouldn't survive. I've heard this all before, didn't buy it then and not buying it this time, either.

...and before JB even has a chance to post about how the environment is different now, I would argue that it's actually better this time around. As has been posted ad naseum here and elsewhere, this airline is going to shrink no matter how we vote with the draw down of the 50 seaters. The difference is that all regional airlines are having trouble staffing the planes they already have, let alone those shifted from another carrier. Who is going to be able to accept any new flying if they can barely fill their cockpits right now?

I understand we aren't going to raise the bar after Pinnacle/Endeavor and PSA caved, but this contract gives away too many things that don't cost the company ANYTHING. Fix the work rules and QOL issues and I'll vote yes, until then, I'm a solid NO!