PowerMan

Sure, I totally agree. The NMB may or may not act favorably for us. But settling on inadequate sections based on conjecture guarantees an unfavorable outcome for us.

The point I’m making is that all 3 parties to this negotiation are fully aware of the factors influencing the eventual agreement. All 3, then, can deduce what’s reasonable with regards to each section. As line pilots, we only have one input ultimately, a yes or no vote to the (eventual) TA. Since that TA hasn’t been presented yet, I expect it to reflect current market conditions, respectively. If it does, I’ll be a yes. If not, I’ll be a no and expect the NC to go back to the table. I certainly won’t settle for sub-par sections because the NMB might not receive our rejection well. That’s conjecture, it’s out of our control, and it runs counter to a logical and fair outcome.

When a TA is presented, our union will explain why and how they reached the agreement to each section. If a case can be made for sections that seem below average (past precedents, above average gains in other areas, etc) then I’ll factor that in my vote. If the reason is because the NMB might not like our rejection of a sub-par agreement, well that’s not a reason backed by any substance.

Grossly indadequate sections are hard to offset and are usually disproportionately unfair to some cross section of the pilot group (poor reserve rules to junior pilots, poor LTD for those prone to health issues). There’s just no reason for that in the current environment.

I won’t let conjecture influence my analysis of a TA. Either it’s fair or it isn’t.