I don't know where you inferred that I'm pushing PBS. I'm not. I'm kind of agnostic regarding PBS in general though I think the main argument against it in our case would be the difficulty in trusting the company to honor the language of a CBA that implemented it.

What I mean by saying that the company says a lot of things is that they say a lot of things: some of it's genuine, a lot of it's not genuine. They said way back in the early 2010's, that we'd grow again once we hit 15% ROIC. They strongly implied that if we agreed to one pay rate for all 737's when we acquired the -800's, that they'd return the favor. They say they "luv" us.

You stated that the company claimed during the last round of CBA negotiations that they were not willing to give anything for PBS. First, it may or may not be true that they did say that. Maybe they said it. Maybe they didn't really say it. Maybe it's just a rumor.

Second, even if they did say that, it was in the context of negotiations. Both sides in labor negotiations bluff and stretch the truth in order to gain a negotiating advantage. Russell McCrady grew up trading horses in Texas. He's literally a horse-trader. We may not like it but the man is an excellent negotiator and ought to be respected in that regard. He knows how to bluff. Are they truly not willing to give up anything in exchange for PBS? I don't know, but I don't put stock in any statements they may or may not have made regarding PBS during the last set of negotiations.

Third, even if the company said that during the last round of negotiations and even if they were 100% authentic in expressing their unwillingness to give anything for PBS, that was five years ago. Lots of people on both sides have rotated in and out since then. The world has changed. The economy is different. Covid came along. Etc. The company may have changed its tune regarding PBS since then even if they truly weren't willing to give anything for it five years ago. Who knows?