Originally Posted by
757Driver
Outstanding and accurate in the same breath. We are not here to steal anything from anyone. We are voting no on this agreement as it is sub-standard, period end of story. While I too see the reality of what the UAL Pilots are facing, this agreement is still sub-standard. Vote the way you will but don't blame us for what's occurring as there is only one real villain, and that role is being aptly played by management.
Cast your ballots but remember, we could sit here and call the LUAL guys all kinds of names for caving in and serving only their self-interests due to the perils they are facing. I chose not to do that and will honor the results, whatever they may be, come Saturday.
As Slats says above, like it or not we will possibly be a lot closer to being one Pilot group by Saturday and what direction we row from there will be more important than the results of the TA vote.
Thank you for being a gentleman in this post.
Personally, I think this agreement is worthy of a "Yes" vote from LCAL AND LUAL pilots. The people (not just ALPA) that cost these things for a living say that it's better than DAL's starting in 2014. I also think that there are some truly significant work rule improvements that the LCAL pilots will experience that are superior to what DAL has. However, I can solidly appreciate that my opinion isn't shared by all. Provided that one is working with ACCURATE information, and not the arguments that have been firmly shot down by the SME's from some of the random "30 Reasons to vote no" missives, I fully and totally respect each pilots vote, regardless of direction.
I don't at all think that LCAL pilots are voting no en masse to "stick it to the LUAL pilots". Judging by my own journey through understanding this TA, I'm guessing that there is much misunderstanding of what's actually in there, especially when it comes to work rules. As the LUAL work rules are the vast majority of what is in the TA, the LCAL pilots won't be nearly as familiar with them as the LUAL pilots are. The improvements in Add Pay, 5 Hours/Day and Line by Line, and the extra money LCAL pilots get in their B-Fund don't get NEARLY as much attention as the twice-per-year inverse reassignment, but I think they are MUCH more important. Mostly, however, I think LCAL pilots simply don't have as much at risk as the LUAL pilots do, hence an easier time voting no. You are looking at some growth either way, hiring, industry leading upgrade times, ok pay, and a contract that you seem content to live with if a renegotiated contract takes another 6 months, 1 year, 2 years.
What concerns me is that I think the vast majority of the LCAL pilots do not agree with the consensus of the costing experts from all parties, and don't see this as an industry leading contract. They consider it substandard. That's ok, but that's usually where I see the argument stop. A "No" vote is registered, and then.... what? I'm assuming the goal of turning down the TA is to get a better agreement. I hear all the theories sported by average line pilots with absolutely no concrete information about what's happening behind the scenes that caused the vast majority of our reps to support this TA about how Jeff NEEDS this deal, how you "always turn down the first deal", and how the company can afford to give us more. What I don't hear is the plan for extracting that money. What I don't see is Jeff negotiating any differently than he has been for the past 3 years. What I don't feel is that the NMB or the parties that actually have the power to affect our contract will feel that we are getting a raw enough deal that they should force the company to open it's checkbook in any substantial way.
It wouldn't surprise me if the NMB were willing to "move the deck chairs around the Titanic" within 6 months. You want full retro? No problem. Take back the Guam over-ride, keep the LCAL pilots B-Fund at 12+%, and allow the company to exclude the Q from the 76 seat cap and you can get full retro (which goes up $40-$50 million per month). Trouble is, that every pilot has a different set of things they are voting no on. In the above scenario, you capture the "no because of retro" vote. But you then open up a whole DIFFERENT set of no voters based on what was given up to GET that full retro.
The only way it works, is if you assume the NMB will agree with our position that the TA SHE NEGOTIATED and considers industry leading is substandard, and forces the company to once again open their checkbook in a substantial way. I have news for all of us. Tigers don't change their stripes, and Jeff ain't doing it unless he HAS to.
It's a business decision. Accept the TA, and you have a known quantity, and in 2014 by all parties costing analysis, an industry leading contract. Turn it down, and the future is uncertain. Any new deal has to be worth MORE than $40-$50 million a month NET to the pilots to break even, substantially more to make it worthwhile. But you also induce outside risk factors such as the fiscal cliff, economic collapse in Europe, a nuclear Iran, North Korea firing off more rockets, etc. etc. Any one of those things happen, and the chances of the company being forced to increase their offer goes to nill. And in hindsight, we will have made a BAD business decision. Perhaps the fiscal cliff will be averted, and the economy will explode, giving us ample leverage to demand a significantly better deal. I personally don't see it happening.
Man, I need a nap after writing that.