One thing that's interesting is that the Pinnacle scope contract requires the integration of the our pilot group onto an acquiring carriers list if the acquisition results in a reduction of airframes here at 9E. Why Lee Moak signed this I don't know, that's massive leverage management has against you guys.

And THAT right there Bill is why nobody can discuss this with you unless they are also overcome with illogical fear.

You are behaving EXACTLY like the AirTran pilots. They had the newly passed McCaskill-Bond legislation on their side, yet they accepted SWA's seniority list offer because of fear. Totally unreasoned fear.

Saying that strikes have to be ruled out is blind illogical fear. The NMB has NEVER said this. This White House has NEVER said this. This Congress has NEVER said this. Yet you state this as though it was fact. If you want to behave like an AirTran pilot, that's fine. But it literally sickens me.

Carl

Ridiculous posts don't help your cause Bill. The pilot's survey didn't demand full restoration. The best evidence I have is that the average ask was about 25% on date of signing and holding the line on scope. That didn't happen. But far more importantly, the MEC (our elected local reps) did not get a chance to guide the negotiating committee because the MEC administration went around the MEC and the process. That's the point. All your ridiculous straw men arguments won't change that fact.

Carl

I don't believe it is a "straw man" argument to give more credence to what they do, over what they say. That's all.

AFA, IAM, etc

Did you happen to follow any other the AFA drive over the last two years?

I disagree about "protocol", and 14 reps on the MEC agree with me. A couple of the reps didn't like it. Had there been an egregious breach of procedure I don't think we'd have gotten that margin on the MEC. Do you?

No question the DTW reps are unhappy about how their influence in the process was not followed. I'm trying to recall a time when they've EVER been happy... The question comes from whether we permit the minority to have their way in matters like this.

So you're including in your decision making process how the CEO sounds. Doesn't take much to convince some, apparently.

Lol- as I've said before, I'd love to play poker with him. Like swiping candy from a baby.
Hey Bill.........BOO!

I believe the "A" in "TA" stands for "Agreement".

Your car salesman analogy fails because the deal was AGREED to by both parties. At this point the MEC has presented the Agreement for ratification.

Our MEC endorsed the deal. Not everybody on the MEC, just like it doesn't take every congressman to pass a Bill. You get that. Let's get back on point. I think RA will not allow the rank-and-file to alter this deal quickly - within the next several months - because he doesn't want other groups to use it against him. What say you?

The AirTran/ SWA/ Boeing 717 deal along with the trade up with Bombardier was probably completed in an hour. No biggie......???

I bet they won't be too happy with a NO vote, which leads me to believe it could take a long time to renegotiate anything. Just a hunch, just like you guys have with your leverage thoughts.

This is a curious example for you to use Carl......as I'm sure you are aware, the Airtran MEC voted down the initial SLI agreement on an almost unanimous tally (7-1) in August 2011. They were rewarded for their bravery by having SWA release the dogs and they ended up with what nearly everyone believes is a worse deal than the first. That doesn't strike me as event where voting 'NO' leads to bigger and better things.