Jobs are lost and gained based on economics. If the company can make money, they'll put a plane up.

Currently, I don't think anything changes if the TA is ratified. We would excuse an existing amount of non-compliance.

The reason you have these contracts is to protect against large swings, upside or downside. Our partners generally have larger aircraft. If we grow, you want your protection in EASK's (seats): they add a 380, we add 2 767's. If the economy tanks, and the JV pulls flying back, you want it pulled in some fair proportion, but not EASK's (you don't want to dump 2 767's for a AF A380).

At first glance, we have decent protections up/down traded for being slightly lower than our allotment now. We're not coughing up jobs from here, but we could have been higher, in theory. Or, to be in compliance, we could have leaned on our partners to cut more of their jobs/flights, and been in compliance.

If you are forecasting tremendous growth on the Atlantic, we're saying we'll capture a little less (but still add pilots). If you're forecasting mediocre-to-down on the Atlantic, the TA adds a block-hour floor. That's about it.