Excellent point, Columbia! This is what scares me the most about being represented by DALPA. From everything I have gathered here, on the DALPA Forum, official DALPA communications, and private emails and phone conversations with my reps, DALPA is squarely in the "scary and unrealistic" camp with regards to those kinds of percentage increases. In other words, something far short of restoration appears to be DALPA's "realistic" objective. I don't want someone representing me who thinks like that.

Like I've said before, it's certainly not ideal to be "switching horses" this close to Section 6. It would have been better if this had come up at least a couple of years ago... but, unfortunately, I don't think our pilot group was quite ready for it at that point. In any case, I'd rather go with a somewhat "unknown quantity" who has objectives that are more in line with what I think are appropriate than to stay with a "known quantity" that has objectives that I think are wholly inadequate and inappropriate.

I think there's still time to get it right before Section 6, one way or the other. For me, it just comes down to how likely it is that DALPA's going to change. From what I've seen so far, I'd have to say not likely at all.