At the time this was published the argument of avoiding 3B4 raises was a threat and outside of standard practice. Where would that threat originate? Would it be from management or the group pushing the TA?

The 3% is well known now and was not as well known by the entire pilot group at the time. The joint letter was accurate and informative. The calculation was based on the Jan. 1. Industry average calculation from 3B4.

If the source of this threat was management, it was passed on as fact and used to threaten the NO voters instead of being explained and vetted. If the source of the threat was our own MEC, then it is divisive and manipulative. Which is it?