Originally Posted by higgi8f6

So I ask some hypothetical questions since we have yet to see the TA. I'm currently on the fence at PDT about this TA. You can sit here and tell me to hold the line and all other BS but no regional is in the same situation Piedmont is currently in. Republic and ExpressJet are both locked into multi-year contracts with the majors. Envoy has equipment that will be around for years to come and leases that can be extended. Piedmont has at best 2-3 years. We park 1 plane in 2016 and in the first quarter of 2017 we are scheduled to park 4 or 5 with a few more being parked later that year. Currently Piedmont staffs about 8 pilots per aircraft so in 2017 we will no longer require at least 15% of our workforce or about 50 pilots. There are no options to extend leases or anything like that. We will park aircraft because they have reached their cycle limit.

Now I'm not excited about a 12/4 cap because it took me 7 years to upgrade ,however is it a concession to accept a 12/4 where you reach the top amount faster and the hourly rate is consistent with what you top out after 20/8 currently? Let's say our 12 year cap is still higher than other carriers who top out after 20 years? Same for FOs? It may not be industry leading but it is in line with industry standard? In addition, because we make more money we have a net gain on income even paying higher insurance premiums? Is this a concession? I'd be making more money and consistent with other regional carriers?

ALPAs policy has always been get the aircraft on property then negotiate upwards. With this TA we are allowed to open up QOL items i believe twice or three times during its term. That gives us the opportunity to better our contract once the aircraft are present.

Personally I wanna vote no out of spite but that is not fair to the industry and definitely not fair to the Piedmont pilot group. Emotion should not be a reason to vote one way or another. Now I personally will probably be able to get hired by a major in the next year or two but is it right to vote down a future for Piedmont? Because that is really what we are voting on. Is it fair to the FOs who are just starting or the senior guys waiting to retire? Yes they will be able to find other jobs flying but at what financial and personal costs to them? If Piedmont doesn't close they will be in a much better position.

My biggest internal struggle is that if I am still here when the term of this contract expires, will I still be happy with the way I voted. There is no easy answer.