Well, the beginning mostly states the obvious. From then on, it's clearly a sympathetic piece to management (few "analysts" are supporters of organized labor). There is accuracy in the statement that APA is in a tough spot, but that's mostly their own doing. Absent any meaningful changes to Parker's "initial" proposal, APA leadership would be committing seppuku by simply folding and sending that proposal out for vote. They'd enrage a much too large percentage of their pilots and nullify their own validity to Parker and their pilots, especially after their posture to both sides. Neither side really wants arbitration, so that means both really want an out that gives both a victory, so to speak (at least the appearance of one) in that they were each able to compromise to achieve an agreement. I agree with Keay in that this will occur.

Based on the two "wants" by the sides, there will be some relatively soft alterations. The two bookends of pay and scope will go largely unchanged and I agree with Keay that profit-sharing will remain off the table, just as scope is. Perhaps a one-time "signing bonus" to goose the agreement by giving the pilots at least something out of this years present and almost certain future profits ?

Whatever the final deal, it is certain to leave those on the extreme hardcore end of the rejection bell curve disappointed (a DAL contract), but will validate that the tack of the opposite end of the bell (the Steve Miller "take the money and run" crowd) was a poor plan that needlessly left value on the table. I get the idea Keay probably came to that conclusion after a discussion with Parker who is more then happy to use sympathetic media sources to assist in managing pilots expectations.