Because many have seen this before and how the sausage is made. The MC message is...

To be clear, we will not enter mitigation discussions which hold pilots hostage to pay rate reductions, scope concessions, or unacceptable work-rule changes. Any potential mitigation must achieve our goals: stop planned furloughs, stop displacements, and include long-term permanent gains for any short-term, fully recoverable modifications. Management continues to say they want to reduce involuntary furloughs so they can excel during a future recovery; now is the time to see if they are willing to pay for that flexibility.

How much do you think no furloughs and stopping displacements will cost? Do you really think a company who is burning $30M/ day is going to pay for that? I'll offer that the company is willing to pay for flexibility. With passenger traffic at 30-40% of 2019 levels, the company IS paying for flexibility by currently not laying off and bumping below the 70% level. After all the bumping and furloughs they are still carrying a lot of extra pilots. We are most definitely going to pay for this. It's just a matter if it's equitable or designed for membership ratification?

"Long-term permanent gains for any short-term fully recoverable modifications"... It will be framed as permanent gets and mitigating our compensation cuts. Look closely at how much value it actually adds to our position. How much money does it actually cost company? Were these items already agreed to in Sec 6 negotiations thereby buying our contract? As to a short-term deal, does anyone think our overstaffed dilemma will end next March?

While I've not discussed rumors in this post, I will add that my discussions with those directly involved resemble what we are hearing. I'm also concerned from these conversations that this deal will have to be sold versus standing on it's own merits.

Could someone pull a rabbit out of the hat? Absolutely. Looking at the current landscape, I'm highly suspicious and fully understand why a NO vote is justified.