The problem in this TA isn't the commuter clause. It's the code sharing, franchising and licensing if our livery.

The commuter clause definition allows contractors with even bigger planes to avoid the designation as a commuter carrier.

It's an improvement from the term sheet and the LBFO, but its still a no vote for me.

I was under the impression that if we exit bk without a contract we would be in section 6. Not true. We would go into section 2. It would be as if we just voted in a union and started from scratch. 1113c for many years. Once we exit our leverage disappears.
I voted NO on LBFO 1. I'll take a long hard look at this before I decide what I can live with.

The belief that it will be years under the 1113 is unnecessary fear. If we merge with US Airways, Parker will have to negotiate a contract with APA. Outside that, I can't see Horton building a successful airline without the pilots.

Try not go let terror overtake you. That is what they want.

Seriously? I know the score as much as you do and I am certainly not making decisions based on fear. The cold hard fact is that if this gets voted down the BK process will move on with out us. The implications of that are unknown at this time. The worst case scenario is that AA emerges without an agreement, Parker loses and we are forced to start negotiations under sec 2. This also could mean ( depending how benevolent and kind AMR corporation choses to be) that we would be working under the term sheet for 2-5 years without a DCP.
I voted no last time because I knew they would come back to the table. Times up. To not look at all the possible outcomes in this disaster is simply stupid.

We have an agreement with Parker -- the CLA. Unfortunately, it lags the AIP reached last week in many areas - Pay, profit sharing, regional scope. In the highly likely event of a merger in or out of BK, do we have more leverage to improve the CLA by having a ratified TA and a big ownership stake in the enterprise or by negotiating from the term sheet? The further downfield we move the ball now, the more we can get out of a JCBA once a merger is consummated.

Obviously, unlike your claim in your previous post, you're already a "yes". Hopefully, you're a senior captain. If your not, you're screwed.

I've read both extensively and I see the agreement with Parker as better than the AIP, especially in scope, which is the majority of the game.

Please list direct comparisons in pay rate increases (annual percentages and schedule), sick, LTD, vacation, RJ flying by commuters, codeshare and pension so I can better understand your claims.

Thanx.

I'm not going to list direct comparisons for you -- you have access to the same information on the CLA and TA that I do. I see the AIP as a better bet than the CLA based on a combination of comparison to the CLA and the circumstances surrounding where we are in this strategic chess match. You're free to see it differently and vote accordingly.

That's what I thought. You must be senior enough to have convinced yourself the outsourcing of AA flying wont affect you or you were one of the original 39% listening to the DFW or ORD fairy tale.

The CLA is the better bet for most. Yes, I will vote accordingly.

At CAL, for a domestic pilot (includes Canada and Mexico), you must be given 24 hours off in base in 7 days. International pilots downline rest of 24+ hours off is allowed. There are some 757/767 trips I have seen during the summer with up to 17 days in a row of work and training all because of this little nugget. Disgusting.