That is only accurate if you believe that had we voted no, the company would have withdrawn the $463 million offer that it was convinced would help recruitment/attrition, and left the table until forced to return for section 6. Because it was worth $463 million to them to get first year relief, but it wouldn’t have been worth oh I don’t know, $500 million or whatever would bridge the gap to current rates…. and they would have just walked away because we hurt their feelings and punished us with 2018 rates while continuing to try to recruit and retain with the lowest first year in the industry. AND that if we had voted no, negotiated for a couple months more up the amendable date (which we still haven’t reached by the way) and came to an absolute stalemate where not one further dollar could be obtained… that the company would NOT agree to the original TA terms backdated to Jan 1.

I mean, at least admit that your six figure shortfall would be predicated on that exact scenario happening before you try to convince people we would be on 2018 rates with a No vote.