Originally Posted by pagey

I just wanted to quote myself here seeing as most of you clearly didn't read my whole post....



This makes no sense. I'm not sure what FACT you are referring to but I am talking about the FACT that Airways blatantly said during these negotiations that mesa was next up if we turned down this TA. I am also talking about the FACT that the pilot groups at mesa or republic will not get a chance to vote on anything.



I quoted myself(from the post that you quoted but obviously didn't read) at the top of this post...just throwing that out there.....again



You are absolutely correct. This is something I considered while voting.




Yes, but they clearly aren't going well. Republic is iced currently I believe. At the end of the day it will most likely be a while before either of these carriers can "raise the bar." Also you can't tell me that Airways does not know, or consider that negotiations are ongoing at these places. They will get a fixed cost agreement to operate these acft, and management will use it as leverage during said negotiations.



Going to give you the obligatory, please read my ENTIRE post. I took the liberty of quoting myself at the top of this one for you.

That being said, this TA will not effect me negatively until 2021 when I hit year 12. If these acft are not growth and I remain an FO I will make just as much at year 4 pay(new cap) as I would at year 6 pay(old cap)due to an increase in our blended rate from larger acft. The insurance increases in my situation, while a consideration, is negligible.




For some(not me) a sticking point was that this TA would make PSA viable and, most likely guaranteed to stay around for the duration of their career due to operating larger acft. Staying a majority 50 seat carrier will limit our sustainability.

Not everyone is voting on the career progression portion of this TA because it simply doesn't make sense for them to go to mainline at age 55 or 60. It is important to them to actually have a place to work for 5 or 10 more years though.




This is a new one for me but is probably garbage IMO. Any benefit Airways gained from our lower cost would be negated by having a significantly more expensive carrier add 35 200s.



It's not a lie. It might turn out to not be true, but he isn't lying because the truth of the matter is that we don't know(something to consider while voting).

I agree with your other paragraph here. The last sentence though I do not. I mentioned the "hold the line" thing in my original post so I'll point you back to it. Also "holding the line" at a mainline carrier is a completely different ballgame than at the FFD level. You know why it is so I'm not going to elaborate. Apples to oranges.