Originally Posted by Raptor

I agree it is a well-written and rational post. I see the reasons why HE may vote yes. Everyone should put the same level of thought into their own voting decisions. But, as with everything, some things are more important than others--and this is different for every pilot.

I have several thoughts on his post. Albie speaks of the additional 10k in education for his single child family as a huge deal. What happens if you have a family of two kids? A lesser improvement. Three kids, no improvement. He's "lucky" to score a big win because of his family composition. And, he somewhat dismisses the HILO changes that affect the FDA because he can pay for hotel and per Diem costs out of his raise. But, MANY people used that HILO. It's value to those who use it frequently is well over $10,000 so it's a huge deal also. One of the reasons to move to CGN on narrow body pay is to see Europe. This TA takes many thousands out of pocket for those that were using it. Losing it eats up most of the payraise for the CGN guys and gals who use HILO. Also, the company has all the data. Don't you think they wanted this change as it was costing them a lot of money? If it was costing them a lot of money, that strongly implies many people were using it, so it's not a minor change.

I also note there seems to be a lot of talk about the company booking you in business, but you getting the first class bank. Thus, you could deviate, book yourself on the same flight in first class, then undeviate per the new rules as you're on the same flight? I know the NC put out comments saying this (getting first class bank, but booked in business). But, the language is very convoluted in this section. My read on the plain, written language doesn't agree. Anytime the language is convoluted, I am very cautious as the company wanted the change, so they have plans to get cost savings. After all, we certainly understood what was negotiated, intent, etc of 4.A.2.b and the company turned the process on its head. Fool me once....

Another point is this notion that we will re-engage with the company on retirement. Maybe we will, but maybe we won't. I can't consider this possibility in my voting decision. Also, I don't like the thought of changing retirement outside of a section 6 negotiated package. Part of my decision making process weighs the good/bad of retirement in conjunction with the ENTIRE TA. Let's say we do a retirement LOA and we freeze A fund and put in a big B fund. It gets a 51% vote because it's structured just right by the company to entice the junior guys who are the most costly as they haven't earned their high five yet. Now, the 49% retiring within 10 years are hosed. And, if they would have known of the freeze/change in the TA they would never have voted for it based on the entire package. A retirement LOA will be weighted by the company to remove costs that ERISA and FAS haven't mandated as sunk costs--it will divide the pilot population worse than if we had just done away with the A plan for new hires and indexed the A plan for those on property.

If we have so little negotiating power in section 6, why should I think we will get anything I like in a retirement LOA? An LOA will likely be even worse as there is no counterbalance in other sections of the contract. If you feel the TA is poor, I would doubt an LOA could be any improvement. Fool me twice......

I look at my no vote as having the emotion taken out of it too. I am not voting no on my pocketbook and solely because of lost $. I'm voting no because:

1) did we meet cornerstone of work rules improvement--NO. For everything fixed, there are sections completely rewritten and huge amounts of blue writing with all kinds of new loopholes for the company. Sick leave notes not fixed, reserve not fixed (who cares if someone now has visibility on being screwed, they're still being screwed), etc.

2) did we meet the cornerstone of improved pay? No, but I can see the possibility of a slight yes. I say no because when I looked at the pay rates, I thought they were anemic and therefore I would find something in the TA I really liked to balance that. I didn't--so No.

3) did we meet the cornerstone of improving retirement? No, and I don't count status quo and keeping new hires on A plan as an improvement. The increase B % is offset by not having cash over cap which reduces its value greatly...by 2021 to be about an effective 7% to 7.5% B plan for a wide body captain. I think this is the major area that would change if this TA were voted down. I think repolling would show that A plan is so important for those on property that we, as a group, would assent to ending the A plan for new hires in return for a substantial B plan for new hires. And, it would provide an OPTION to convert for anyone on property wishing to do so.

4) did we meet the cornerstone of improved insurance....no. While you may have some Geo Blue improvements and purple CDHP is interesting for those who are healthy and don't have any Rx drug costs, keeping our traditional buy up plan for significantly increased premiums isn't an improvement. I don't consider keeping something we have invested negotiating capital in over time and something I've traded other portions of the contract to maintain and improve over the years as a win. Going from 13% cost share (per ALPA Q&A) to 20% cost share in the buy up plan isn't a win. The increased premiums in the buy up over 10 years essentially eat up your "bonus". And, people overlook the doubling of costs for prescription drugs--that has the potential to be more costly than even the premium increases. Also, if you're on a purple or orange CDHP, you think your doctor visits don't cost that much so those out of pocket maximums are unreachable. Wrong. If you or your family go on a SINGLE non formulary or even non preferred drug for the year, you'll pass the sound barrier on your way to out of pocket maximum. So, the CDHP plans are great if nothing happens that year and no family member gets a chronic condition. Not so great if you don't win the health lottery year after year. Everyone must look at the max costs under these plans carefully.

5) six years--minimum--is too long to fix anything as the company does things with the language we grieve and lose.

In summary, I agree that I probably won't be monetarily whole in a delay. But, I'm also voting on work rule and QOL issues. If I give those up now, I'll never get them back. (I gave up a day of extra work to get first class DH, now that they go away, do I get my day of work/QOL back?). These QOL and work rule issues are of greater importance to me. And, there is a significant possibility retirement can be improved after we repoll and move forward. Maybe we see other company rates with their new agreements and we can improve ours? Small chance, but that's better than no chance in improving work rules and QOL lost. We get to see TNT deal close and if we don't get the long haul flying, that will generate huge blow back by the pilots and even with hiring, next peak will be a huge problem for the company. We get to see a new president and if the Cadillac tax is repealed or modified.

While I respect your opinion and reasons, many of us have other things we are basing our decisions on. Our reasons are just as valid...just different opinions and weighing what is important to each of us individually. I hope everyone puts as much time and effort as you do into our decision making.

As with you, whichever way the vote goes, I'll go with it as we will have spoken as a group.