80, you seem to be constructing the argument that since we already do backside of the clock flying, that it's OK to add more backside of the clock flying (on less than ideal rest).

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's safe, or even smart.

DALPA has brought a lot of attention to the fact that our PWA is more restrictive than the FARs. I'd like to keep it that way.

Forget about the short term pay bump. Selling work rules for pay is a strategic fail. By negotiating them into our PWA we are hamstringing ourselves from being able to make a (valid) safety argument in the future.

In the next downturn when management comes looking for concessions, the pay we sold these work rules for is there for the taking, leaving us with...

One more thought. (yes we haven't seen the final language) but if this is shaping up how 80 is indicating (that we are selling CDOs for pay)...

... Which one of us would like to volunteer to explain to the famlies of the folks on flight 3407 that we used FAR 117 not to capture more rest and safety gains, but chose to monetize them as concessions?