1. Yep E190 pay didn't go up much. Are you willing to trade other things to get that pay up? Like it or not, the industry pays based on aircraft type, and that specific type is already the highest E190 pay in the industry. To fix that would be awesome, but it would likely cost us in other areas. I'm an E190 guy, so sure, wouldn't it be cool to have more? Yep. But I'd rather the larger fleet get more, and improve in other areas too.

2. CS rates could improve, yes. But they are middle of the road, and not terrible. At least they are doing a blended rate for the non-flight hours versus paying CS100 for all with an override if you fly a CS300. That's what I was expecting.

3. I don't GAS about profit sharing. I would rather give it up entirely for higher guaranteed rates. It is codified now in the CBA, so it cannot be changed. Again, middle of the road. Not great, or terrible.

4. I wish the COLA were 1% more. If we vote this down, we will never regain the loss in money over that timeframe. This is a simple cost/benefit analysis here. That's not enough for my no vote.

5. Medical benefits aren't a driving factor for me, so that doesn't drive my personal vote yes or no.

All of the above are meh/middle of the road for me. (And we are discussing my vote here, so that's the lens we should look at this through.)

Now we can discuss the stuff that is a dramatic improvement.

1. Reserve is better, with long-call provisions guaranteeing use of it.
2. Pairing construction is far improved.
3. Scope is far better.
4. Instructor provisions are far better. (Way better)
5. This will codify our CBA and give us a place to improve from in 3.5 years.

So for me, it's a meh/cost of voting no to improve the pay sections won't be outweighed by the gains versus the improvements in the other areas. That equals a solid yes. The risk of downturn simply makes that calculation more confirmed for me.



So all that said, I hold no ill-will towards those who vote no. Their calculus is different. Good for them.