You're right on one count: I didn't expect the NC and Donatelli to make such lobsided presentations, i.e. full-blown sales-jobs. Add to that that I didn't expect the strength of the opposite sales-job, and in particular, their ability to control the "facts". Seldom do you find a no-voter that actually knew what was in the contract. In the end, it was a question of which sales-job turned people off the most, and since 1) a lot of people have repeatedly warned ALPA about pushing TA's too aggressively, and 2) the TA was marginal...

What you're missing, I think, is the role of the company, and the entire MEC. The company clearly has decided to invest very close to the minimum they can be compelled to invest. Actually, they really can't be compelled to invest much at all right now, but they want to sell the labor peace story to the press and PS restructuring to Wall Street. They put about $100K per pilot on the table between now and 2018, but that doesn't quite meet what a lot of people wanted. Beats what we can get, but not a lot of people have made the transition from desires to achievable results. There, the MEC failed us. They should have quit selling "On-Time, On-Target", but I think they did have a survey asking them to deliver a contract early. I'm sure no one was asking for concessions, but everyone was asking for money, early. This was the path. The entire MEC followed along, through nine (9) direction meetings, working through all the details you're seeing and hating now, like 23.G.5. They collectively sent the NC back in several times, with clear instructions, which they followed.

Now, you've got 8 reps that pull back and distance themselves from the sausage-making process they insisted on, a tone-deaf Donatelli playing in their hands by singing the praises of this thing a little too much, too early (he finally got a hold of himself with the last letter), a company that took a very long time to own their threats, and a ****ed-off group that doesn't quite understand how we went from the survey to the TA.

"How" is by ignoring the signs. In hindsight, we were pretty dismissive of contract comparisons, judging them to be manipulative. We shrugged when we read Dickson's memos on productivity. I remember personally ranting about pattern-bargaining, and saying we should not be benchmarked against the industry, but against Delta's profits. "Should" not. But evidently, the process doesn't lead to that. We can be here still in 29 months, still talking about "should", but negotiating for AMR + 1. So, yeah, I can see how people were shocked by the TA, and the alternatives. I know I wasn't happy when I read the bullet points, and it took a while to come to terms with the reality of my survey colliding with the greed of the shareholders.