[QUOTE=HBdude;1904726]Exactly. This is classic FUD. How about option 6:

6. doing nothing and sitting on current book is better than the massive concessions the TA contains.

As for the NMB, it is entirely unreasonable to demand any concessions in this kind of environment where we make almost twice the profit per quarter that we did per year (other airlines too) when pay and work rules were significantly higher.

Wind the watch and tell the NMB that while we certainly deserve C2K + full inflation, 7 weeks of touch drop vacation and the return of the FAE A fund, all we want are minor COLA+ raises, enough to return C2K plus only half of inflation because we want to help the company out by recognising the sancity of their bankruptcy reset, even though it isn't needed, and a couple percent more DC, all of the zero cost scope improvements (SEA is a HUB and a few dozen large RJ's sunset) and a few work rule improvements.

Meanwhile let the company flail around and pound their desks about how much they "need" numerous and deep concessions. Then we compromise yet again, to be extra reasonable. We tell the NMB that the TA's supposed value, all things considered, was 1.1B according to the company, and they'd never lie. So we'll gladly help return 100M to the shareholders, executive leaders or the charity of the company's choice by only taking 1.0B in added value in pay/DC/per diem/vaca only with no other changes aside from the zero cost item of SEA being a hub. Sounds pretty reasonable, doesn't it?