Originally Posted by
satchip
Aside from the money, I see small improvements but big give backs. T asked how it hits QOL. JV scope will reduce the number of WB jobs, period dot. Now I don't plan to fly one of those but every WB CA job not there is a senior NB FO sitting at the top of my category, that hurts my QOL. You can't argue in any coherent way that the TA sick policy is better than our current one (not the TA1 overreach, don't throw that red herring). OE trip pulls is a negative. It will limit them or at the least take trips of open time thus reducing ones ability to manipulate the his schedule. QOL hit.
Those big three there, to me, outweigh the small improvements. Even it they are a wash, you can't say this TA is "significantly superior" to what we have.
Is the money worth the downward trend and the lowered base from which to negotiate the next contract? I think that depends on how long you have left.
The JV scope can no longer be violated via force majeure... we now have a baseline global protection vice just isolated to the the atlantic and the AF/KL was maintained as EASKS. That is a good thing.
I see the sick as a minimal effect. OE trip pulls are nearly useless to the company. Yeah, it's a negative, but I don't think it will even be noticeable to us.
So, we've got those. I see QOL increases with vacation increases, pay bumps (yes pay does help QOL), and a meager but present DC increase. That significant outweighs what you define as negative.
On top of that, I saw a potential significant upside by turning the TA back last year. We got that, in my opinion, plus full retro. I see very minimal potential for upside beyond this, and potentially significant downside. That's not fear mongering- that is my thoughtful analysis on how this will go. This was my expected outcome from my no vote last year. I don't see the merit in another one.