Does it matter if it is "unreasonable"? The cost is a function of laws passed to ensure pensions are funded better than they were. It is what it is. The cost of that burden is the company's argument against raising the cap, increasing the annual multiplier, or any of the other efforts to increase the benefit.

So far as verification of the 4:1 number, since knowledge of it is a result of information seen by MEC members who had to sign an NDA, I don't see any reason to expect the company will ever reveal the details of those numbers, how they were computed, or why. I understand the suspicion of information coming from members of the MEC based on past behavior, but this is information the company is never going to reveal to the pilot group. Insistence on chasing down the accuracy of the number is wasted effort.

It is a piece of data the pilot group didn't have during the last round of negotiations. Rather than wasting effort trying to disprove its validity (which is something none of us will be able to do), why not use it instead to figure out how to get the improvements in the A plan we want, rather than trying to stab the VB plan to death with it?