There are good reasons 7 out of 12 voted not to even send this thing to us to vote, much less agree it's good for the pilot group. Have you read some of the councils' commentary on why? They are worth reading more than any of my random commentary.

In any case, we didn't ask for voluntary measures that were almost completely at company discretion, with delayed implementation and no metrics to evaluate effects on manning or furloughs. And we DID ask for 55 hour SILs, which is the only thing I had my eye on. I figured we'd get something similar to SWA's multi-year leaves at about that rate, and we'd save a bunch of furloughees by implementing them. As a narrow body FO in an undermanned category, I've been working like pre-covid and expect I'll have nothing voluntary to choose of this LOA platter. I'll certainly not get to synchronize a leave with the same month of my limited leave... which is the only way people who do the math can make these options even sound adequate.

So it's easy to say we "got almost everything we asked for", when the value of what we actually got was minimal... and the value of what we will likely give up in perpetuity (industry-standard paid SILs) is significant.

As far as the next LOA only affecting the bottom 1,941... which will be presumably be voted on after they've been furloughed? That's a pretty smart play by management (again). Unfortunately, they've figured out we will settle for crumbs. It was a huge mistake for the MEC to send this out for ratification as is.