There are several other implications to the international flying if these concessions are handed over on a silver platter to management, as every other one has been throughout the years.

Relief on FAR 117 will result in not only more two-pilot trans-Atlantic trips, but possibly more two-pilot trans-Atlantic legs.

I understand that some carriers use "floating" IRO's; that is, an IRO is only assigned to legs that are actually scheduled for over eight hours. (For example, an eastbound leg from the US to the EU might only be scheduled for 7:40, while the westbound is scheduled for 8:20. Only that westbound leg would have an IRO assigned to it.)

Furthermore, I have also heard that some carriers actually DH IRO's on legs that don't require one as an active crewmember. How would you like to sit in the middle coach seat of a 757 for seven hours -- at half pay?

With regard to bases losing flying, although Parker has mentioned that he wouldn't put one airline's crewmembers in the other airline's hubs/bases (as CO did in ORD and SFO, before their SLI was completed), nothing would prevent trips from being operated, say, MIA-LHR-CLT-CDG-MIA; or PHL-FCO-JFK-MAD-PHL.

And for those who are thinking "It doesn't affect me" because you don't fly international, well how many times has that attitude come back to bite pilots who voted "Yes" on contracts with crappy reserve systems or below-regional-standard pay for smaller mainline aircraft, only to find out later that it did affect them?

Fewer international pilots, as a result of diminished staffing requirements and/or a less desirable QOL on international service, means more domestic pilots getting bumped from left seat to right seat, from blockholder to reserve, from Group II to Group I, and from Group I to you-know-where.

Alas, I realize that these points have been offered in vain. I agree with the above posters in that we all know that in the end, the "Let My Daddy Vote" pants-wetters will prevail.

'Always have. 'Always will.