You know all those 50 seat jets that everyone hates? Many of you have no idea what was sacrificed at some carriers to get those junkers nobody wants today, even though they were coming anyway.

The evidence is ridiculously overwhelming that there is a shortage at the regionals that is just beginning, that regionals will be a small fraction of their present size within five years or so. If you can't see that it is because you are choosing not to see it, and nobody can help you. Not saying anything about votes or deals, just that regionals will not be able to staff at current levels. There is no big "if." It's glaringly obvious.

I've not said ALL of you have those issues and you've made some good stands recently. I'm trying to caution you on how slippery faliure can be. Some of you guys ONLY see criticism and condescension from me completely disregarding that I'M ON YOUR SIDE. If you can't make that distinction in my true points, how will you successfully navigate the complexities of the strategies being played upon you by an adversary that hires professionals far more skilled then me ?

As it stands now, at least one person here (whether he knows or admits it) is actually trying to manage your expectations and so far, he's a hero to many. BTW, if you read some of the comments here, there are some ready to roll if they think it gets THEM to AA faster.

.......and I'M the guy spreading doom and gloom ? :cool:

The blame for that lies SQUARELY in the lap of ALPA. From the early 90's when the regionals started to explode with 64-seat state of the art turboprops and Comair introduced the CRJ-200, they had the opportunity to look forward and shape a new paradigm that drew regional pilots CLOSER in, instead of a more satisfying isolation strategy which managements capitalized on and trashed the profession. As a result, EVERYBODY to some degree sacrificed except the fat cats in Herndon, who continue to this very day of gorging themselves at the income trough at the expense of the saps who pay them dues. In fact, even as late as fall 2013, ALPA national has subscribed to the very same isolationist philosophy that screwed us all in the long run by virtue of Moaks letter to then Eagle pilots.

Not all our enemies exist outside the wire.

BTW, how did the meeting go ?

I saw a black Jet Ranger flying around the hotel the other day and figured I was under surveillance. :-0

But he wants to get there faster and have more seniority. That's all that matters and to heck with everyone else, so just stop thinking and start voting. Whatever's offered, vote yes if the promises are sweet enough. If you vote for sweet promises, it won't matter if there's little substance, because nothing can go wrong then........you've got your promises.

Except I told you how I felt this thing would play out in both scenarios and your only comment was that I'm doom and gloom. From what I've seen the argument against any deal is purely emotional, you should never allow emotions to affect business decisions.

First off the contract we're so fervently defending is industry average at best, I don't think that small concessions off our current deal are earth shattering.

Secondly I believe our bargaining position will be strengthened if we obtain the 175 flying. If this pilot shortage is real it will give us extra leverage for contract improvements down the road.

Finally I believe the only way average guys will ever reach a legacy airline is through a flow program. I think any improvement to our current flow is valuable and should be explored.

At what cost? Should we all take concessions because most cant get to a mainline on there own? You want a flow and concessions, them why not separate the contract into two parts. Flows take all concessions since you will make it up on the mainline side and the non-flows leave alone.

Regarding your first two points, agreed that the arguments against ANY deal are indeed emotion, but so are rationalizations to capitulate to a BAD deal. As for advocating additional concessions to what is already a contract you were swindled into during bankruptcy, I'd disagree there. To think there isn't a pilot shortage at the regional level is denial. To think it won't get much, much worse is misguided and it seems you're already slouching toward capitulation and there is emotion in doing that already at this stage.

As to your third point, if you listen to Mason many months ago, he said you guys would get the 175's either way. Now, it's morphed to plan A (you get them and everyone apparently dances in the AA isles) or plan B (you don't and get screwed). That's quite a shift, but he's not any crystal ball, just someone who looks good telling you which way the wind is blowing at the moment because he apparently has inside info and doesn't mind spilling it on a public forum. Don't assume the windsock is telling you the whole story just by what it indicates at any given snapshot. It seems you're reacting to something you shouldn't and perhaps it's best to ensure your present house's foundation has as solid a future as you can make it, instead of concerning yourself with knocking a few more bricks out of wall in the hope it will generate a calm sunny day elsewhere ?

......and that leads to point number four, and although I disagree STRONGLY with this assumption, let's say you get your flow "enhancement". It will likely amount to another 10 pilots a month at most as that's all Envoy could afford, at best. Should market or world forces dictate a delay or cessation of that agreement, where and what do you have to fall back on ?

The already concessionary contract made even weaker for something that now won't payoff. Let's consider that enhanced flow under those circumstances. The extra 120 pilots a year sounds great (I guess :cool:), unless the flow stops for months or even years. Then you get burnt on both ends. Flow thru's are great if they work (and none has yet so far, including this one where they are metering in violation of the agreement), but betting a few more chips when your stack is small to get it, might be a bad move. That's all I'm saying.

At what cost is the question. We will find out what cost they're asking for if/when we get a new offer. Whether that will be acceptable is something we can't answer until we see an offer.

If something like what you proposed at the end of your post was ever offered (it won't be) I'd certainly consider it.