This isn't that interesting a discussion, but... to the extent he explained his methodology, it's hard not to count both the PS and the DC, if you're cataloguing Carl's success or failure. Both of those items, if I'm not mistaken, are a product of the "failed" strategy of constructive engagement that's being assessed here. You can't evaluate it without considering the major assets (and liabilities).

Personally, I think constructive engagement is a strategy, not a perpetual way of life. You could argue that we really didn't get as much for our help as we should have, in C2012. I voted for C2012, without regrets, because at the time, we didn't know if the economy was going to be like 2009, or like 2015 is turning out.

Overall, as sailing has pointed out, we've enjoyed some very worthy gains since the ugly days of LOA46. It's really hard to argue against that. The question is whether C2012 is evidence of a strategy that has run it's course, or just a slightly weak TA considering the strength of the company at the time.

Looking ahead, I will judge the value of any engagement simply by the outcome. Engagement for the sake of engagement is useless. Engagement for the sake of results is laudable.

And I'm rooting for ALPA's success at the negotiating table.