I’m a soft yes, unless there is a single concession in there.

The company outplayed us, and by the time we got back to the table (based on how long the last two TA’s took) the economy will probably be in shambles.

I just can’t foresee us getting anything better.

 

I will have to agree.

 

Same

:filler:

 

Just because we won't get anything better doesn't mean we should vote yes. 2% + another 1% way down the road isn't enough to ratify. I'm betting there are give backs from the current book no one wants to mention yet...but we will see.


Hard no.

 

While I don’t disagree with you per se, let’s look at this with some perspective. Is 2 + 1 a big disappointment, yes. If we vote this down based on just that, the status quo remains the same, we start new negotiations with a new MEC probably, which will take what, at least 12-24 months? We know this TA was based off of the failed last one, and it still took over a year, without renegotiating all the sections. If this fails, the company wins, because we start from scratch, and the status quo remains unchanged, and the company doesn’t spend any more than they already were planning to. If we ratify it, we get a measly, slap in the face pay raise, but we also force them back to the table in 3, maybe 2 years. All this while the economy could falter, and we have zilch, might as well get something. Meanwhile we circle the wagons, get a new negotiating committee, and attack a new contract from scratch in a couple years. Does the situation suck? Absolutely, no arguments. As mentioned above, the company outplayed us, and here we are. As long as there are 0 concessions, I’m a soft yes, with the caveat that I haven’t seen the language, just like everyone else. Change the insurance 1 cent higher and I’ll be a no vote. Who knows, maybe some of the language / QOL / etc improved. I doubt it, because I think it would have been in the email, if I’m going to announce something, I’m including the big things, if all they included was 2+1, consider me underwhelmed. Rates aren’t everything, look at the whole package before passing judgement. Hell if I had to judge a pilot based on looks alone, I’d call the cops on half of ya.

 

I completely understand and respect where you’re coming from on this. I think my difference is more to do with long term strategy—by denying them a new contract I think it could help our leverage on the next round (with the right negotiating committee), while you’re voicing the opposite idea. My thinking is long term leverage is worth more than the 2+1%. But I completely understand and respect your thinking that by moving the goalposts up by 2+1% now gains us more leverage for the next go around.

 

Your logic is sound as well, I don’t disagree with anything you said. I’m looking forward to seeing the full thing.

 

If I can recall, this TA was 6-0 by the MEC to send out for ratification.
Last year it was a 5-1 vote. What changed to make it better?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Less money to FOs more money to captains, and committee is all captains if I had to guess, not sure at this point.

 

We're all getting the same raise percentage. Sure captains will get a larger raise in terms of hourly wage, but it doesn't really benefit captains that much more considering any FO that wants to upgrade can do so in less than two years.