And there we have it, ladies and gentlemen. "Not worth it." Why isn't it worth it, Lew?

My beef with you is not disagreement with you - quite the opposite. It's your defeatist attitude coupled with your disdain for this pilot group. If you want to have a healthy debate Lew, you gotta bring up the specifics. The closest you came to it was talking about the RLA, so I'll even extend you an olive branch and talk squarely the RLA.

The last go at it, and ever since, you were annoyed that we "weren't using the RLA to our advantage." Care to expand on that? What would you have done differently? Here's your chart:



As you say, it's a long way to self-help with multiple 3rd party checks before getting released to the next point. Since one of the mediator threats was to "put us on ice", what, in your opinion, should have been our strategy around it? This is what I'm talking about - specifics. I know the mediators are even allowed to, shall we say, stretch the truth, in order to keep the parties negotiating and press on so if the needle even barely gets moved, they can keep you stuck at that particular step for quite a while. Where did Casey and SWAPA drop the ball with the regards to our approach, in your opinion? You keep saying how we don't know the RLA process. What are we missing? I mean that. How do you think SWAPA should have balanced the time value of actual gains vs. potential gains in the RLA process? Again, specifics.

On a slightly separate note, speaking of specifics, did you read the April RP with, you guessed it, specific changes sought, section by section, of our contract? Specifics, Lew. They matter. And again gonna repeat myself... you're not wrong. So since your approach sucks... go arounds are free. Come back and try again.