While I can't advocate for the merits or list the shortcomings of the TA yet, as I don't know what's in it, I can ponder two courses of action at this point with the TA lying in limbo and awaiting the thumbs up or down from the MEC. One, approval of the TA and the other, rejecting the TA.

First course is fairly simple, we get to vote during the ratification process. What about the second course of action? What happens then? I've heard some interesting takes over the last few months, as well as in 2012 when we were at the same crossroads. Off the top of my head:

1. We send the NC back, no harm no foul, and resume negotiations from the last table position prior to the TA. Company understands and engages from where we left off. Company gets the message and we end up with a superior agreement. No timeline usually offered, but generally assumed to be short.

2. Fire the NC and start fresh with new and improved faces. Scrap the prior table position and start new, honoring the new input from the MEC. Company understands it is just union business and they resume negotiating in good faith. Ultimately we get a superior agreement. No timeline usually offered, generally assumed to be next year sometime.

3. NC resigns. New NC is elected. MEC then tasks new NC with new and improved imperatives. Company realizes that the old NC did not speak for the MEC and doubts the new one does as well (lack of credibility). Negotiations are put on ice until mandatory mediation next year. Company submits the TA table position to the mediation board. Mediation board sees industry leading contract, in fact richest contract in history (lets just say for argument), then puts DALPA on ice. No timeline offered, generally assumed to be protracted.

Those are just a few, but cover most of the variations. Any thoughts from the certain NO votes as to what happens and how long a timeline we should expect?

As far as my opinion, if I were the NC chairman and I got the authority to TA a table position at a special MEC meeting, then did just that, and later am asked to go back and re-negotiate, I would resign. So I think that part is pretty certain. I also think the MEC would have zero credibility with the company. The new NC would therefore have a tough time convincing the company negotiators that they indeed have the authority to TA. The natural conclusion is that it is the MEC who is driving the NC and ultimately empowered with ability to accept a TA at the table. After balking once, why would the company believe the same divided MEC could ever in good faith TA.

Then you have the issue of precedent. Would the company ever open that can of worms? Would they reward the fickle behavior of the MEC with a superior contract? What kind of message does that send? What happens next time? I think history is a guide and can satisfactorilly answer that. What group has ever rejected a TA and then been rewarded with a significantly improved version? I can't think of a single one? Does anyone have an example of this tactic providing good results?

For these reasons, I think the horse has left the barn when the NC achieves a TA. It was a big issue last time for me. As it turns out, I liked C2012 and had no problem voting for it. But, I wondered if that had not been the case, what exactly was the path to a significantly superior agreement, assuming we failed to ratify the TA they accepted? The only scenario I came up with that made any sense considering the above, was to recall enough reps to significantly change the MEC. In this way the credibility issue with the company would not necessarily pose such a problem. In this scenario it's the MEC's fault and we pilots recognize and correct the problem. We then re-engage the company with a completely new MEC and NC. This is what the APA did more than once. That process takes time and the TVM eats up gains. History says that isn't a good bet.

So in a way, I think failed membership ratification is easier to deal with than TA that was authorized by the MEC, then rejected during the review. In the former, you can remedy the situation by forming a new MEC. What can you do with a MEC that rejects their own TA?

I suspect if we have the same drama this time with a split MEC, I do think that is the case BTW, somehow they achieved a majority consensus when they authorized the NC to TA. If I was in the minority on that particular vote, I would emphasize to the MEC as a whole that the horse is about to leave the barn. Are we certain we want to do this? There appears to be little or no future for a significantly superior outcome if the slim majority collapses and the TA is rejected. Perhaps asking for a 2/3 majority instead of 1 vote majority. At any rate, as a minority opinion I would be under no illusions that I owned the TA for no better reason than it would be virtually impossible to go forward and achieve superior results.

For that reason, I was quite amazed with so many NO votes last time. What possible benefit? Perhaps the NO voters knew they didn't have the final tally to reject and therefore there wasn't really any risk. Basically a symbolic and political move to speak to their members? Probably, but just maybe they really saw no risk in rejecting the TA. The latter possibility concerns me. A vision of monkeys, gas cans, and matches comes to mind. Saw that in technicolor over at the APA and USAPA.

Word is the TA will be revealed in its entirety on Tuesday in open session. I'll be there for sure. This was a real spectacle last time and it should be quite something to see this time. I've been chided here for suggesting we have a divided MEC. I challenge anyone who says I'm wrong to come and watch Tuesday and Wednesday. If I'm wrong, I will admit it right here.

BTW, I'm serious and want to see some scenarios as to how this could work out if the TA is rejected by the MEC. Need something to think about until Tuesday.