I assume you're being sarcastic. Sadly, as you know, this thing is gonna pass. And, like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if it passes with 90% or more voting yes.

I strongly recommend a no vote for all of the reasons I've laid out repeatedly in other posts. Though I wish me saying that would change things, I'm not delusional. I'm saying it for posterity's sake.

Right now, the yes crowd is making nearly identifical arguments that SWAPA pilots have made about every TA we've ratified in the past like, for example, TA2 in 2016 that became our current contract that is widely rued in the pilot group today. But our then SWAPA president endorsed it: "If it's good enough for SWAPA, it's good enough for me," said 84% of the pilot group.

Note that the main players in SWAPA today are nearly identical to the main players in 2016. They engineered the much-derided current contract. They engineered the much-loved (for now) current TA. What could go wrong?

Among other mistakes, they blundered in an enormously costly way this cycle when they filed for mediation much, much, much later than they should have had they known what they were doing. They've even now admitted to that. Filing for mediation in a timely manner didn't require an RLA genius. It required basic familiarity with RLA dynamics, which they apparently lacked when it mattered. That could almost be said to be DFR territory. Water under the bridge, but the implication for right now is this question: if they didn't know the very basics back then, what assurance do we have now that they are up to speed and competent in this very critical domain?