Higney, you've contradicted yourself. If the company "badly wants" a SLI/JCBA (statement 2), then we didn't really "get anything" (SLI/JCBA talks) by cancelling picketing (statement 1)

So let's use some simple logic to clarify who wants what and who is getting what.

There are two possible theories concerning the company's intentions about reaching a JCBA/SLI:

Option 1) The company truly "wants it done." If this is the truth, us picketing or not picketing had nothing to do with them "granting us" the opportunity for SLI/JCBA talks--the potential cost efficiencies are what brought them to the table, and picketing or not picketing had nothing to do with it.

Option 2) The company does not truly "want it done" and they seized the opportunity we provided them when we proposed a JCBA/SLI to stall negotiations and progress at all three airlines (primarily 9E and 9L), and the opportunity to make it through the holidays with no pickets, no bad PR, and no work diruptions.

The truth very likely lies in whether the cost efficiencies of a merged airline, fleet, and single certificate are greater than the direct and indirect costs incurred with a passable JCBA, plus all training events associated with eventual seniority list integration, plus the bonus, etc.

My personal opinion is that Option 2 is "the truth." My reasons are as follows:

1) The company had this buyout planned (roughly) a year ago, when they first proposed dual qual. Lawyers and executives plan things like this out--they don't dive in ramshackle without some sort of analysis or strategy. When they announced they'd be "asset transferring" jets and making 9E the jet fleet, and making XJ the prop fleet, they weren't just pulling that out of their arses--those are carefully selected legal terms.

If they had even considered the possibility of signing a JCBA with all 3 of our airlines within the last year, their negotiators would already have very well-defined proposals on all sections of the new contract based on current book and predicted needs from TA1 failing. The pace of negotiations indicates to me they were basically doing things as they went along--as if they (mysteriously) hadn't even considered the possibility of a JCBA anytime in the recent past.

2) If the company wants a JCBA/SLI to gain cost efficiencies, they surely have a good idea of how much they'd save from a JCBA/SLI. If the company really wanted it done, they'd merely walk in with "Best Final Offers" in each section based on those numbers, and it would be done a lot faster than what we're seeing.

3) More than 2.5 days of negotiations would be scheduled already if they had any intention of finishing this before the new year. And if they really want it done, they wouldn't want to wait much longer, now would they?

Also, Higney, with all due respect, you're kind of the "boy who cried wolf" leading up to the last TA vote concerning the mythology that the company "would be back at the table within a week if we voted it down" that "Delta wanted all labor disputes settled by 2009" and that "they would come right back to the table because they had to have the TA to finalize the United flying."

I'm not saying TA1 was desirable, and I'm not saying anything against your character, merely pointing out some history, since most of us have a 6 month attention span and Fall of 2009 is ancient history...