Originally Posted by
finis72
There is always risk in voting either way for a TA. If you vote yes and then UCAL comes in and blows our TA out of the water then we are stuck for 3 years or you pore over the 10k data from this year and next and realize we left $ on the table. There is also a real risk in voting no and fear has nothing to do with it. Every decision we make has a risk reward factor. This company has a direction they want to go at a certain cost level. This TA gives them the cost structure they need to execute their plan. A real possibility if we reject this TA is DL will opt to go a different route. DL is projected to make record profits with the current contract in place for the next 2 years so obviously the status qou is not hurting them 50 seaters and all.
The majority rules and right now I think it will be a no vote. I have no problem with that but I do have a problem with people that say there is no risk in a no vote or equate risk with fear.
I think the likelihood of UCal having a contract before we even negotiate the follow on to THIS one is about... zero. There is no changing the minds of those on this board whose are already made up I didn't make up mine until I actually read the contract language... and there are some awesome protections in there. I have no ALPA connection, nor talking points, and like you I can live with a no vote. No fear spin.. no talking points, but I'll betcha that this contract is time sensitive for a reason, and that if this gets voted down, there will be a long time before the next one takes it's place. Like I said, I don't care either way, but it is sad what we will miss out on...
This place is depressing beyond words.