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.

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).

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.

I won’t guarantee you ****! I’m perfectly fine under the current contract…

Love ya Al, but I think you're off track here. Unless I see a smoking gun, or a plan for the aftermath of a NO vote, I'm a yes.

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.

I have the same problem. I just can’t get behind a no vote. Everyone has a price for everything. I guess real trip trade and more awesome reserve costs about 8.6 billion for me.

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.

Yeah, Ed’s comments were unexpected to me. I thought he’d be more positive about what a NO vote could accomplish. He didn’t seem optimistic that the company would give more, and said mediation is tough, “they don’t like to mess with work rules”. He did not say how he would vote though.

Ed and his temper almost killed the entire thing. Guessing he had some sense talked into him, and is treading much more lightly.

Well this is probably one of the most nonsensical, least logical statements posted lately.

Basically, if you can’t have your perfect grand-slam contract complete with your own personal unicorn, you’d rather work under worse rules and pay indefinitely.

I’m on board with the others. It’s not a home run. But I’ll take the triple and advance e forward. Voting yes.

the logical fallacy of entitlement.

Don’t try to understand. It will make your head hurt.

These yes voters are why AA pilots can't have nice things.


Bottom of the barrel sick accrual at 60 hours a year. Don't get the sick hours you've earned until the following year. Can't pick up the remainder of the trip if you call out of any part.

Can't decline RO anymore.

Electronic notification making it easier for the company.

Nothing to fix TTS, red/redder - which is absolutely locked down and won't change.

Many things don't go into effect for 18-36 months.

No penalties if AA misses deadlines.

No snap up.

No two pilot requirement in the contract.



Just to name a few. We were promised QOL, it isn't there. At all. What you get is a pay raise thanks to Delta stepping up industry pay. Biggest hiring boom ever. Largest numbers of retirements ever. If we vote no AA will have to come to the table quickly because they can't afford to let everyone else hire all the qualified applicants as the rest get their new contracts. We'll get stuck with the flows who can't get hired anywhere else and have no choice but waiting their turn.


So quick to cave in and accept anything thrown your way. It's pathetic.

Ah yes, our employment conditions are so dire and awful. How do we manage to go to work every day?

All sarcasm aside…I think it’s fantasy to believe if we vote no, then AA will come running to us to settle on these items. Bottom line is we have no shortage of applicants. And even SWA, which is losing people left and right, has remained stubborn and refuses to settle their negotiations. You really do think AA will cave to your demands? It’s highly unlikely they will. Voting no will only drag this out even longer for marginal or no real gains.

What do you mean by you don’t get your sick time you’ve earned until the following year?

Not trying to be rude, but you really ought to educate yourself on what’s in this TA. You’re mad and disappointed yet half the stuff you said isn’t even right. You’ll be happier and healthier if you bother to learn the facts first instead of glancing at something and instinctually taking to APC or social media to air your grievances.

Just saying.

Also don't forget back pay. I calculated out to just over $80k.

I don't understand the position of voting no because you are happy with the current contract. By the time we'd finish arbitration, we'll be halfway through his new contract. Good luck getting 18-24 months of back pay after it's turned down.

We earn 5 hours per month sick time. However, that sick time isn't awarded on a monthly basis. After working Jan - March we don't have 15 hours sick time come April. We get a lump sum 60 hours the following January for what we earned the previous year. And the (current) 15 hours fronted to newbs gets deducted down the road so you don't get 60 hours for the year, only 45.

DAL and UAL both have shown that TA gets shot down, Union leadership receives new direction (and some misguided folks have to go back to flying the line) and TA 2 comes about 12 months later with a boatload of more improvements.

delta has a competent management

He said the same thing on one of the podcasts a few weeks back. I don’t think a mediation board or the public will look at us favorably if we turn it down.

Taking a post made on a private forum and moving it to a public forum is a huge party foul. If it’s an important post you feel needs to be read find the author and get permission.

I am still reading the contract “I’m a slow reader” lol. All I want to point out from reading these forums is that May 1, 2023 we had 96% of our members vote 99% in favor of a strike. We already knew what the money would be. The money has not changed. Why even go through the motions of voting in favor of a strike if this was not about money. It was about QOL and work rules. If this TA passes those who voted in favor of a strike IMO should not have voted in favor of a strike. loyalty to the money was more important (nothing wrong with that if that drives you I like money too!). As a new guy here I thought we were going to fight for something other than the paycheck which was already presented to us. Am I to understand that the 1% that voted against the strike were the only honest people here and that no matter what quality of life didn’t matter?

I see complaints about APA, but WE are the last defense to “try” to get some more QOL issues resolved, but from what I’m seeing fear of losing that money is more of an issue. We should have simply instructed our APA to get that loot and nothing else mattered. We talk about APA and their shortcomings, but what about ours as a group. The 18 month discretion of the company for one and no snap bothers me personally, for others it may be something different that bothers them significantly. If it does stand by your strike vote unless the money is more important. You were willing then, why not “try” to get what you want now. Yes it’s a gamble we “could” lose doesn’t mean we “will” lose. That’s management’s position they are and will fight for what they want Why won’t we?

It’s Going to take me about a week maybe two to get through this entire contract and understand it. I just want to know, all these YES voters who have read the full contract already, you statistically were part of the 96% that voted and voted 99% in favor of a strike in May. What changed your/our tune, and this ultimately to anyone who votes yes, are the QOL improvements in this proposed TA, (that even our BOD says they were disappointed in) that much better than our voice we had on May 1? If it is definitely vote yes. But if not why settle, we are 15000 pilots strong. Let’s at least try to get what we want. I understand the consequences, but consequences can positive or negative. You’ll never achieve anything unless you try for it, those that settle will get exactly what they settled for.

Yep, agree. I’m fine with the gamble, my life is good either way.

I was leaning “yes” with the bullet point summary, but now after seeing the language I’m an easy “no.” Anecdotal, but I’ve had many friends tell me the same, some of them being hardliner “yes” votes a week ago.

I was convinced the TA would have an overwhelming membership pass, now I’m not so sure.

Yeah, because the guys falling all over premium and CKP positions, or the guys that can't be bothered to read and comprehend CT's 8 point letter from last year have nothing to do with it.

APA may be dysfunctional as hell, and ostensibly led by an angry blowhard, but they can still only operate with the leverage the pilot group gives them.

GMAFB......

Yea, they used AIP to hype it, then walked it back in the TA. Why does it take 18 months to change classification date for pay step increases. Switching to DOH should happen at signing, am I reading that wrong, it will take 18 months to switch everyone to DOH for pay?

Same for me and I’d imagine, the “silent majority” of AA pilots 👍👎🏼

I'll probably vote for it.

It ain't great but will we really get better by stalling? Look at United. They shot down the Tumi TA and still don't have a 2nd deal. A year of recalls and union dysfunction ensued after they voted it down. Does it really benefit us to give the company an interest free loan for another 1-2 years? They probably want us to say no.

Then there's the question of the economy. Sure everyone has been saying a major recession is 6 months away for 2 years now but you have to admit that the global economic climate and geopolitics ain't great. Sure we have less international exposure than Delta or United but we have a lot of exposure to price sensitive domestic leisure travelers who would likely go back to flying the ULCCs if there's a downturn. Ask yourself if you think this is going to get better or worse for us in 2 years. Do you think post covid "revenge travel" will still be happening next summer?

Finally do you really think they are going to dump another bucket of money on the table or completely overhaul TTS and work rules? I'm not sure it's worth it to hold out another year+ for 1% more and some minor work rule changes. It's definitely gambling. I don't believe the company will offer a great deal more or that APA will deliver.

I say lock it in while we can. An okay deal is better than no deal and I agree that our leverage has probably peaked. It's not like we're looking at a regional or ULCC contract here. We're pretty close to Delta and better than what United shot down.

I don't care about getting more money. Two-pilot min crew on the actual aircraft is my hill to die on. I’m willing to lose money/time with a delay for that. If the rumors are true and the UAL deal has 7.5h sick for junior guys and 10h for senior, that will be another hill to die on for me. The rest is nice to have, but I could get to a yes.

That's dumb. It's no different than when they tried to mandate extra crew members when the 737 came out. It didn't work then and it won't work now.

The best way to fight automation replacing us is to become part of the 60,000 member union most opposed to it that has the loudest voice and the most money to fight it.

Ok, I also think doing nothing is dumb. We’ll never solve this problem if we don’t solve it now.

Im thinking 60/40 myself, but I don’t think any of us should be surprised that this management group trotted out the fabled approved by 50.1% TA or that our union leadership agreed to it.

The BOD comments say it all to me. The general sentiment that we’re not getting any better offer from AA is near universal. I don’t think that they’re lying, and believe that AA is more than happy to put off their multibillion dollar expenditure until a mediator looks at us and says “Looks fine to me.”

Both yes and no votes make a large assumption. One assumes that this is as far as we can push AA, we largely have ourselves to blame for that, and the other assumes that management will come racing back to the table with a better deal after a failed vote. Or that a mediator will show up with candy baskets in hand.

Recent mediation comments make me dubious of the latter, and my three seconds on property make me somewhat certain of the former. So the choice seems obvious to me.

And I’ll be one of the ones out 5 figures as management takes 18 months to figure out the impossible task of moving a pay step to the diabolical and infamous date of actually being hired.

We need to "do something" but we also need to make sure that something contributes positively. No other airline has a minimum crew complement in their contract so that would be an outlier and mediators don't favor outliers. We'd be way better to just join the industry wide fight than hold out for contract language that probably wouldn't hold up in court. Single pilot or no pilot passenger ops probably isn't going to happen during the career of anyone currently working here anyhow.

This is not accurate. It is explicitly stated in the current DAL contract with zero ambiguity. Page 1-8, item number 9, middle of the page. Have a look yourself. When you’re refuting something, at least have the facts right.

https://d2r1lrrqctgamh.cloudfront.ne...TA%20Clean.pdf

Well this is inconvenient.

I stand corrected.

I'm sure the Delta boys will enjoy their 2 pilot ocean crossings. But I digress.

I'm still not sure this is the hill to die on since single pilot pax ops is unlikely during the remainder of our careers (especially for those of us over 40) and lets face it if automation actually does progress to the level needed, the union will just be forced to negotiate that away anyhow. It's not like they've never given up anything in a contract before. But if this is your sword to fall on then I guess you've made up your mind how you're voting.

I'd rather take the money and moderate QOL improvements now rather than hold out for something that's probably moot.

Delta apparently loosened up scope to get that and "medical freedom".

You willing to give up scope?

I read the Delta language. A lawyer would drive a truck through it. Autonomous aircraft won't have pilots, they will have a "flight manager" or some such.

No one has been more vocal than me on this subject (just search past threads I've started). Mandating it in contracts is not going to solve it.

For starters, removing one pilot from a 767 sized jet has the same economic equivalence of reducing fuel burn by 25%. If AA does not do that, a competitor will, and it won't matter that we have two pilots because no one will be buying tickets on us (too expensive compared to competition).

Second, this is not an issue until 2035-2040 time frame. Let's tackle it when retirements subside and we have more leeway in regards to other QOL issues as well. The company is physically unable to hire replacement pilots at the feeders, there is little chance they are going to agree today on matters that increase pilots required on property (or put a high price on QOL issues).

Thirdly, anyone in the 35 and under age bracket needs to take their signing bonuses and RJ paychecks and forgo the $1m home and $80k truck and invest the money today. There is little the union can do to stop single/no-pilot from happening.

What comes LONG before pilotless AC? Single pilot ops. That’s what DALPA is protecting against. I’d say you can driving a truck through zero language a lot easier than through the DAL language. At least it exists.

Look, I don’t care how you or anyone else votes. I said why I’m voting the way I am, and so far I’ve seen no evidence to change that. This is one of many issues, and I’m perfectly comfortable in my current life.

Math on this?

On a 737 if I use VERY conservative numbers of 4000lbs/hour and $3/gallon is something like 17-1800 dollars per hour. 25% of that being $425/hour.