All legitimate questions, and I certainly understand your position. Considering neither of us were in the room, we are merely speculating on our leverage and whether we extracted it to the maximum. But now that there is some candor about the fact that things with the company were far from easy in this negotiation, I suspect that a full Section 6 would be as contentious as usual. From there I simply view the progress (or lack thereof) of our brothers and sisters at other carriers as a template of what we can expect during a similar negotiating environment.

As you and I have debated, I think really it comes down to a difference of opinion of how what the risk/reward plays out. If it takes 2-3 years to get a full section 6 contract it would NEED to be a $340/hr contract just to get close to breaking even. It's not just a 13% pay raise. It's a 13% pay raise for EVERY DAY that we have it vs a full section 6 contract negotiation. I reject Scott's contention that we are a weak and scared pilot group. In 2003 when we were told we were 72 hours from closing the doors, maybe. But not now. It's merely a matter of different assessments of how much immediate $$ are worth long term, vs the expected length of a full section 6 negotiation. I'm going to throw my hat behind the guys that were in the room that have a true sense of what the company's mindset is. The same group who brought us a pretty darned good contract in 2012 when the difficulties were massive.

But as I said, I can respect your reasons for voting no even if I don't see them the same way