Originally Posted by
Whidbey
You're right Whitt, I should have added the caveat "to the extent that we're allowing it to effect our decision."
I'm not supporting a no vote based on any prediction of next year's presidential election and the resultant NMB memebership.
DALPA is putting forward the argument that I should vote YES at least partly based on their prediction of future NMB behavior, behavior which is gleaned from an analysis that has intentionally introduced selection bias, just like the pay increase chart from 2008-2015. As they are putting forward this argument, it is appropriate to analyze its merits. Have ALPA's NMB analyses included the fact that the last major airline strike was approved and executed under a second term democrat?
I'm voting no because this agreement surrenders 70 large regional jets, the work rules do not appreciably improve my quality of life, and the compensation falls well below the dollar amount for which I'm willing to be gone half or more of each month.
Agreed. I would however add that it is foolish to vote yes based on fear, as you have permanently signaled your unwillingness to fight for anything more than what is given.
The FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) is not a reason to vote Yes and yet this is exactly the reasons that DALPA is putting forth as reasons to vote yes. We did not achieve our goals in this contract but we came "sort of" close according to the NNPs and the guidance we are getting from our reps. This is nowhere near close enough (I had personal minimums which were adjustable if certain areas had great enough gains that I was willing to lower based on other areas falling short). In every area of the contract this TA falls short and no amount of "explanation" (without getting political, it reminds me of post Obamacare - once you understand it you'll like it) is going to change how poorly this TA meets my needs.