I couldn't type fast enough apparently. Yet another illuminating post. :rolleyes:

There's a difference between being paranoid and one using their brain to remember historical data. The promises and carefully worded pledges have been broken and shown to be full of holes. We get outsmarted and outnegotiated every time we put our pilots up against the likes of Mike Campbell (who was hired specifically to manage us through our union...he seems to be having success on guys like you). We have thousands of intelligent pilots helping to vet this TA and point out weaknesses but our union plugs their ears yelling lalalalala in between stating it is the best we can do.

We have been taken to the cleaners in the past. That quote "he who fails to learn from the past is doomed to repeat it" couldn't be more true and is presently staring you squarely in the face. Rather than learning you continue your quest to trust but not verify. You're hopeless LL!

It's "you're hopeless!" Sorry, couldn't resist. I didn't want T to have to come out of retirement and lose his bet. :D

I'm not on a quest. I do have a hard time understanding those that continue to dwell on the past, even though it has no bearing on our future path. You make it sound like we shouldn't bother negotiating any future agreements because our bozo lawyers aren't any good anyways . . . If that's the case then why have a contract at all?

I happen to see this as a good deal from a Scope perspective. It's an average deal in most of the other categories. If you refuse to even consider what your own team is telling you, then who would you listen to? Just because mistakes have been made in the past does not mean that every future decision made by an organization is flawed.

Are we going to merge with RAH or were you just lashing out??

You're just not getting it. Sorry.

I feel the same way. We CAN agree on something!

I AM willing to consider both sides of the argument. I just haven't seen any compelling evidence that says we will be screwed if we sign this TA. In fact, my analysis leads me to believe that we are more vulnerable WITHOUT the TA than with it. The JV and Codeshare language are clear wins. Holding Company language is another one. Would I like to see RAH cut out completely? Sure! Unfortunately we aren't going to get everything we want.

Can Delta continue to shrink? Sure. There is nothing we can do to stop it. At least under the TA, DCI will shrink with us, not grow at our expense. There are so many good things in the TA that you refuse to acknowledge, that it makes your dissenting viewpoint shallow. I fully acknowledge the many negatives in the TA. I just feel the many positives outweigh it, in the end.

Trust but verify is great, but if you can't verify (we can't ever fully know what's going to happen) then the best you can do is make your best call based on real information. I won't be scared of making a decision simply because we've been spanked in the past. Inaction could very well be worse than taking a less-than-hoped-for deal.

A lot of what's being posted here and emailed around is simply bad information. I have no problem with you voting NO. I'm closer than you think to changing my vote, but if I do it will be based solely on factual information. Not hypothetical conspiracy theories, or even worse a deeply flawed slide show presentation (that many on here latched onto as if it were handed down on a mountaintop.)

I'm happy to debate the TA with you, but help me out. Let's start with what do you view as positives in the TA?

Like you I am considering both sites of the argument. I cannot agree with your analysis however. I see no greater risk working under the current pwa than accepting this TA. Time will tell which one of us was correct.

I kinda thought they would say something more like this:

If these aircraft were flown by a DCI carrier but in service for another airline, the PWA would remove that carrier from DCI, unless it's RAH because only RAH can use the Republic carveout under the PWA.

P.S. - The TA includes a very specific definition of "carrier," right?

- -

Well I'm glad we cleared that up. You did misunderstand me. I was curious if there's something weird in Delta's computer. I was wondering "Why would they intentionally sell a sequence of flights that pays them less than another comparable sequence that would pay them more?"

I thought of two possibilities:
1. programming error
2. specific criteria input (departure/arrival/en route cities/etc) drove the routing away from the higher revenue solution

I disagree.
There is no evidence we are the "pilots of last resort" reference.
There is no evidence we are "giving up leverage". We are using the leverage. It is true that once leverage is used, you no longer have it. It's like ammo. You can shoot it or stockpile it. Not both.
I also don't see that we've facilitated a merger. Most people see further consolidation as inevitable. I don't see that we can change that. I'm also not convinced we should necessarily try to play god. Let someone else run the airline. My union should get me paid.

I don't know you. I don't log in here often. I think people who spend a lot of time on boards like this are kind of sad. In this conversation with me you have in my opinion distorted the situation ("pilots of last resort") and attempted to discredit someone who you think disagrees with you (but you don't know if we disagree because you misunderstood my post).

What am I to think of you?

For all I know, you could be a management mole.

But I have no more basis for that theory than you have for yours.

So I make no assumptions.

You say your choice is to make assumptions with no basis.

If that's the case, good luck to you, sir.