Originally Posted by
gettinbumped
I don't take exception with anything you've posted here. Your logic and reasoning, though it differs from mine, is certainly plausible. The one thing I feel needs to be addressed in your post is your math. You say that if we don't accept an extension you're looking at Sec 6 in 1-3 years (and you're assuming it will be an improvement and not a concession.... not something I would personally bet the farm on based on a descending economy). But if we DO accept an extension it would be 6+ years. Let's keep apples to apples here and say that the timeline for a section 6 is going to be the same regardless of when it's negotiated. So you are looking at 1-3 years, or 3-5 years. Not 6+. It's only a 2 year extension.
There are few 'knowns', so assumptions are required. My rationale assumes a cost of 1-2 years time to giving away/selling leverage. I think that's fair. To your point that the companies financial position may turn south between now and a normal Sec6 CBA, I suppose you could weight that as a cost to voting NO, though I don't think it would change my calculus much.
With only 3 legacies, I don't expect to have a credible strike threat anytime soon. If that's true, we'll need some other way to compel the company to reach an agreement. Without leverage we will negotiate for a LONG time. I'm not counting on being able to play the NMB like we did last time....and even if we could, I don't think we'd get the contract we deserve. In this environment it'll be absolutely critical to use every piece of leverage to its potential. That means we have to identify it, correctly value it, and effectively use it at the negotiating table. We can't afford to squander any leverage...and this expedited timeline already raises red flags.