I really hope the Alaska flying does open up more flying for the Q. That's the only reason I voted yes. As a 175 person, I have no interest in the new Alaska flying but will do it if needed to make sure no Q's are parked (yep that's a virtue signal at its best). There seems to be a contingent of long-timers that are pushing the NO vote and want concessions. To me that's a little tone-deaf at this moment in time. Could we get 4.0 or 4.2 daily min for the jet? Maybe... but how does that sit for the other part of our pilot group. I'm not doing 5-7 SEA/PDX - RDM/MFR/EAT, etc turns all day, and to me, at this moment that's a fair trade-off. I personally can make up for that by bidding better, more efficient trips. It would be nice to have language about a contract renegotiation after the recovery, but is it worth the NO vote right now? Maybe for some and that probably warrants a vote of NO. Hard to argue either way, but if there's one Q parked during the fall/winter then we need to do something drastic before the summer flying of 2021.
During the spring slowdown, we saw the Q take back routes such as SEA-BZM, SEA-RNO, GEG, BOI, RDM. But we know AAG isn't going to let the Q fly into the pretentious state of California. So, are those routes enough to keep you all flying without having any Q's parked? I just hope we aren't being misled by tugs on our collective heartstrings.