It isn't realistic. I've come to realize that the MEC exists to get a ratifiable contract. Which when you think about it, is the same goal as management. When interviewing candidates for the position of MEC chairman, the one question they should be asked is, "Are you willing to lead this pilot group through a successful strike?" Is that question asked? I don't know, but I don't think so. Nobody on the MEC wants their cellphones blowing up on day 29 of a 30 day cooling off period. They exist to get a deal. Less stress for them and they get to tell the pilots, "Well, you voted for it." That would explain why the sold the last deal so hard and voted 8-0 to send it out for a vote.

I think a big problem we have is the way they do the Wilson polling. It is OK to ask about work rules, layover hotels, retirement goals, etc., but they shouldn't ask about pay rates. As soon as that average number exists, you know it is leaked to management one way or another. John H. certainly knows what the number was when he was on the MEC. I don't think they should ask us what pay raise percentage we desire, because then management will know what that number is. Rather they should tell the negotiating committee to get the best deal they can and let the chips fall where they may during a ratification vote. There should be some uncertainty on the part of management whether a vote will pass or not. In 2018, we will be what, 25% behind Delta for 737-900? Our MEC last time tried to tell us we shouldn't expect Delta rates because their wide bodies subsidize the pay scales of their narrow bodies. I say hogwash. How many training events does one retirement trigger at Delta vs. Alaska? Who gets to reap the benefits of having a single fleet type? Alaska management does in that case. Are there costs to having a single fleet type and who bears those costs? At Delta, a pilot can choose to remain in the 737, thereby enhancing his/her bidding seniority but sacrificing pay in the process. They choose to stay in the 737 for more seniority but less pay than advancing to widebodies. Do Alaska pilots have the ability to make that choice? No. The company reaps the benefits of having a single fleet type, but the pilots bear the cost. For that reason, our pay should always be higher for 737 when comparing to an airline with widebodies as well. The Delta MEC should be the ones saying to their pilots, "Look, you aren't going to get Alaska 737 rates because that's all they have and they have much lower training costs than we do." You can compare Alaska to Southwest, but comparing our rates to an airline with a mixed fleet is an apples/oranges discussion.