|
Vote NO. Why:
This solidified my no vote (I stole this from an internal forum)
Sorry to the author: Too powerful not to post. After speaking with my rep today I’ve changed my position from leaning yes to most likely no. To be clear, I’m still going to hear out the roadshow and make my final decision. My chair had some interesting information that changed my perspective and most likely my vote. First off he made it clear that he thinks there’s enough meat in the TA that he had to send it to the pilots to decide. He said that even though he voted yes as the board member, he will most likely vote no a pilot. He said the reason for this is because the company has put APA between a rock and a hard place. He said they were very disingenuous and several things that were promised with the AIP did not make it into the final language of the TA. Things such as language regarding a two pilot crew for job security and medical freedom such as Delta got to name a few. He said if we got an AIP twice and the board votes it down twice, it will put us in a less favorable position regarding mediation and how mediators typically rule. His belief is that it’s better the pilots vote this down than the board at this time. I can respect that. He continued to explain that he’s extremely perplexed as how the company can throw over $8billion dollars at this and still fail so horribly. The company had made it clear that they were worried about this passing without fixing real time trip trading. He said he spent lots of time arguing how it was possible we didn’t have this language in our TA when the company wanted it as well. He claims once this passes the company has ZERO incentive to fix this. He’s very upset with no improvements to reserve and not being able to return to your trip after calling out sick. Bottom line is that we left several improvements that are very beneficial to our pilot group on the table that are at zero cost to the company. I really don’t think there’s one pilot here who’s complaining about the money. The money is there but we do have to factor in lost time from voting this down. That’s something we have to put in the cons column. The reason why he’s torn as well is because his experience back in 2000. We voted (down?) Delta + 1 but after 9/11 we’re happy with a 23% pay cut and happy to keep our jobs. To pretend like we couldn’t have another terrible world event outside our control, when we’ve had 3 in the past 22 years, would be silly. Based on this information I believe I will be a no vote. It’s his personal opinion that if we vote this down and it’s a close margin, the company will quickly throw some or all of the zero cost items to push this across the finish line. That being said, it’s only his opinion and it could be another 18 months until we have something. |
Originally Posted by Al Czervik
(Post 3664697)
This solidified my no vote (I stole this from an internal forum)
Sorry to the author: Too powerful not to post. After speaking with my rep today I’ve changed my position from leaning yes to most likely no. To be clear, I’m still going to hear out the roadshow and make my final decision. My chair had some interesting information that changed my perspective and most likely my vote. First off he made it clear that he thinks there’s enough meat in the TA that he had to send it to the pilots to decide. He said that even though he voted yes as the board member, he will most likely vote no a pilot. He said the reason for this is because the company has put APA between a rock and a hard place. He said they were very disingenuous and several things that were promised with the AIP did not make it into the final language of the TA. Things such as language regarding a two pilot crew for job security and medical freedom such as Delta got to name a few. He said if we got an AIP twice and the board votes it down twice, it will put us in a less favorable position regarding mediation and how mediators typically rule. His belief is that it’s better the pilots vote this down than the board at this time. I can respect that. He continued to explain that he’s extremely perplexed as how the company can throw over $8billion dollars at this and still fail so horribly. The company had made it clear that they were worried about this passing without fixing real time trip trading. He said he spent lots of time arguing how it was possible we didn’t have this language in our TA when the company wanted it as well. He claims once this passes the company has ZERO incentive to fix this. He’s very upset with no improvements to reserve and not being able to return to your trip after calling out sick. Bottom line is that we left several improvements that are very beneficial to our pilot group on the table that are at zero cost to the company. I really don’t think there’s one pilot here who’s complaining about the money. The money is there but we do have to factor in lost time from voting this down. That’s something we have to put in the cons column. The reason why he’s torn as well is because his experience back in 2000. We voted (down?) Delta + 1 but after 9/11 we’re happy with a 23% pay cut and happy to keep our jobs. To pretend like we couldn’t have another terrible world event outside our control, when we’ve had 3 in the past 22 years, would be silly. Based on this information I believe I will be a no vote. It’s his personal opinion that if we vote this down and it’s a close margin, the company will quickly throw some or all of the zero cost items to push this across the finish line. That being said, it’s only his opinion and it could be another 18 months until we have something. The fact is nobody knows the future but it is extremely naive to think that they'll turn around and give us what we want in a couple weeks. It is far more realistic that it will take 1+ years and we'll end up with something similar or worse and they will love to keep operating under the current TA (jokes on us). Maybe you disagree. If so, that is the case you should be making. What's the path forward? My opinion is that our leverage has peaked and will be going down rapidly. My #1 hobby and all of my free time for the past 6 years has been spent studying money, economics, and markets. And while I might not know who won the last superbowl series ball game thing, I like to think I can speak for hours about where the United States is heading from an economic perspective and this is why I would emphatically vote yes (if I had a vote, I'm new). I could be wrong. You can certainly disagree. But if you "NO" people want to make a case, the case should be on what your path forward is. You need to convince me that I will have more money in my pocket 5 years from now if this gets voted down. I believe STRONGLY that this is not the case and we will regret a NO vote. Now bring on the personal attacks (because arguing on merit is too hard). |
Vote no... then what?
No one on this forum or any other can guarantee a better outcome. They certainly can't guarantee another outcome anytime soon. The company doesn't have much to lose with the status quo. The membership does. How much are you willing to lose for marginal if any, improvement? We stand to lose more if we turn this down. |
Mandating two pilot aircraft? How did that go for UAL and the FE's on the 737s?
Membership has learned nothing about its past failures. All contract gains don't come at once. APA has perpetually tried to hit home run contracts and every time they have tried, they have been an absolute failure coinciding with the worst possible timing imaginable. |
Originally Posted by HalinTexas
(Post 3664730)
Vote no... then what?
No one on this forum or any other can guarantee a better outcome. They certainly can't guarantee another outcome anytime soon. The company doesn't have much to lose with the status quo. The membership does. How much are you willing to lose for marginal if any, improvement? We stand to lose more if we turn this down. I won’t guarantee you ****! I’m perfectly fine under the current contract… |
Originally Posted by Al Czervik
(Post 3664697)
This solidified my no vote (I stole this from an internal forum)
Sorry to the author: Too powerful not to post. After speaking with my rep today I’ve changed my position from leaning yes to most likely no. To be clear, I’m still going to hear out the roadshow and make my final decision. My chair had some interesting information that changed my perspective and most likely my vote. First off he made it clear that he thinks there’s enough meat in the TA that he had to send it to the pilots to decide. He said that even though he voted yes as the board member, he will most likely vote no a pilot. He said the reason for this is because the company has put APA between a rock and a hard place. He said they were very disingenuous and several things that were promised with the AIP did not make it into the final language of the TA. Things such as language regarding a two pilot crew for job security and medical freedom such as Delta got to name a few. He said if we got an AIP twice and the board votes it down twice, it will put us in a less favorable position regarding mediation and how mediators typically rule. His belief is that it’s better the pilots vote this down than the board at this time. I can respect that. He continued to explain that he’s extremely perplexed as how the company can throw over $8billion dollars at this and still fail so horribly. The company had made it clear that they were worried about this passing without fixing real time trip trading. He said he spent lots of time arguing how it was possible we didn’t have this language in our TA when the company wanted it as well. He claims once this passes the company has ZERO incentive to fix this. He’s very upset with no improvements to reserve and not being able to return to your trip after calling out sick. Bottom line is that we left several improvements that are very beneficial to our pilot group on the table that are at zero cost to the company. I really don’t think there’s one pilot here who’s complaining about the money. The money is there but we do have to factor in lost time from voting this down. That’s something we have to put in the cons column. The reason why he’s torn as well is because his experience back in 2000. We voted (down?) Delta + 1 but after 9/11 we’re happy with a 23% pay cut and happy to keep our jobs. To pretend like we couldn’t have another terrible world event outside our control, when we’ve had 3 in the past 22 years, would be silly. Based on this information I believe I will be a no vote. It’s his personal opinion that if we vote this down and it’s a close margin, the company will quickly throw some or all of the zero cost items to push this across the finish line. That being said, it’s only his opinion and it could be another 18 months until we have something. |
I haven't flown with a No voter yet. I'm in for a Yes. Ridiculous that the entity that has failed us (APA) is going to be the Saviour and get tough if we vote no? Too many solid improvements to gamble on a **** sandwich served next year. Take the gains and work from there.
|
They’ll go to mediation as the union president said they were committed to doing today. There’s a fun 12-18 months where next to no QOL improvements will be achieved.
The contract is a yawner in many ways. I also don’t think we’ll achieve any better any time soon. |
Originally Posted by Supermoto
(Post 3664721)
Ok, it's pretty easy to make an argument that you want even more than this contract provides. I'm in that boat. I mean hell, double the pay and triple my vacation, sounds great! The argument shouldn't be that you want more, it should be about the path forward if this TA is killed.
The fact is nobody knows the future but it is extremely naive to think that they'll turn around and give us what we want in a couple weeks. It is far more realistic that it will take 1+ years and we'll end up with something similar or worse and they will love to keep operating under the current TA (jokes on us). Maybe you disagree. If so, that is the case you should be making. What's the path forward? My opinion is that our leverage has peaked and will be going down rapidly. My #1 hobby and all of my free time for the past 6 years has been spent studying money, economics, and markets. And while I might not know who won the last superbowl series ball game thing, I like to think I can speak for hours about where the United States is heading from an economic perspective and this is why I would emphatically vote yes (if I had a vote, I'm new). I could be wrong. You can certainly disagree. But if you "NO" people want to make a case, the case should be on what your path forward is. You need to convince me that I will have more money in my pocket 5 years from now if this gets voted down. I believe STRONGLY that this is not the case and we will regret a NO vote. Now bring on the personal attacks (because arguing on merit is too hard). No one knows what will happen if we vote no. The company could come back quickly like the OP claims. Or they could tell us to F off for another year. Whatever we get would have to be epic to make it worth not having the 2 billion over the next year. It’s an easy, ****ed off and disappointed yes for me. |
Originally Posted by FNGFO
(Post 3664915)
They’ll go to mediation as the union president said they were committed to doing today. There’s a fun 12-18 months where next to no QOL improvements will be achieved.
The contract is a yawner in many ways. I also don’t think we’ll achieve any better any time soon. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:56 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands