Something like that is easy to (keep) say(ing) and one can point to real and/or rumored "big asks" as evidence and all that. Fine. But where is the proof that we'd have an agreement already...and more importantly what would it have been? Would they have agreed to anything basically instantly that didn't include some concessions? Would some of those concessions have been bear traps where we'd be saying "gee we didn't think they'd do THAT!"?

If we're going to play the straw man time machine game, we have to play both sides of the board.

Was the union's "big ask" too big and that prevented an agreement already? Maybe. That's not an unreasonable conclusion based on what we know. But its likewise pretty unreasomable to assume that whatever the company would have agreed to nearly instantly would be something we're better off with in total now. Was what we would have otherwise gotten better than status quo including any inevitable concessions and the downline effects of unintended consequences? What we needed the most then and what we need the most now are better scope and work rules. And we may end up with even more leverage now compared to then because of the potential training/hiring/recovery situation.

Not only will we never really know, but we're still in a pretty good position all things considered.

The "but the union extremists" argument has outlived any usefulness it may have once had and its time to move on. That dog no longer hunts.