There's one fundamental difference which allows me to use assumption, or more accurately, uncertainty. All of the arguments you just made against my position are in the context of negotiation. I accept uncertainty in negotiation just like you can't predict the outcome of a war.

On the other hand, a contract is not a negotiation. A contract is a take it or leave it proposition in it's entirety (unless you go back to renegotiate). If the contract is vague, it invites assumption where it should be virtually non-existent. Why even bother to have a contract if it leaves so much assumption?

So you see, one domain inherently allows assumption (uncertainty) whereas the other domain should have virtually no assumption (uncertainty).

Isn't it unreasonable to have a contract with so many loopholes? As someone who has worked many contracts (not limited to aviation), I can tell you this contract has too many holes and is dangerous now, and in the future. It is an assumption that we can get TA2 done in a month, but it's better than the absolute certainty of defeat that is guaranteed with TA1.

Perhaps you need to stop allowing yourself to "get over it" and take a stand on principles rather than allow yourself and your profession to be walked on. All of the yes vote talking points are precisely what F&H engineered the general population to say and think. They own you.

The Railway Labor Act Simplified

This communique is for entertainment purposes only. It does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge employment with any air carrier nor is any relationship implied. This communique does not represent the opinions or policies of ALPA or JB ALPA and does not represent the collective pilot group, ALPA, nor does it imply collective bargaining, advocacy, or workforce actions intended to disrupt operations.