Here's the Cliff Notes version of Phil's letter posted by Jerry:

1 - Management rewarded themselves first. Now it's our turn.
2 - He doesn't like Scope, Scheduling, and mostly Profit Sharing language.
3 - He mostly does not like the fact that we will drop our PS grievance.

My opinion: the overall deal is a negotiation. We kept PS intact and unchanged which puts us 5.74% better than the last TA. Also, our share of the employee profit sharing pie increases from 36% to 40% thus increasing our PS payout from where it currently stands. It decreased after the other employees got a raise last December.

In return we allowed language that made clear that our PS plan payout is distinct from the other employees because ours is now better. We have a grievance which says due to the technical language of our contract we should get more PS than we were. It may or not pay (I don't think it would) at some time much later in the future for an undetermined amount. The question: Do you turn down this TA now with a guaranteed payout of 30.2%, the same PS formula as before, with other improvements in the TA, all for an unknown amount that may in fact never pay off at all in the future.

That's for everyone to decide hopefully.

And in fairness to Phil's clever metaphors (and they are clever) he implied management's fuel hedging and currency trades were "Beanie Baby gambles". I do agree with Phil there.