In my opinion, which isn't worth much, we need to prepare to fight battles that are big ones. ex: Losing retirement at age 60, losing B fund, Losing A fund, messing with vacation, making it very difficult to commute, etc. This TA is a no brainer and we should vote YES!

Are we giving up leverage??? Not this round. I predict the next contract is going to be so concessionary that this pilot group will unite like never seen before when they start touching sacred things like pensions and vacation!

Lets face it! We have come off of 2 years of 4a2b and most of us dont have extra income or the motivation to fight this round. Take a break! Make some money and prepare yourself because the next round has the potential to be very ugly! This TA is no where near "ugly" and you need to choose your battles wisely! This is not a "scare tactic", just some common sense.

Just my 2 cents.

You need to get back on O2....

So please tell us all how we're not giving up the ONLY leverage we have by voting for this TA?

We cannot "fight battles that are big ones" without holding descent cards! If you give the company the FDA, there is ZERO, NADA, NO incentive for them to do anything but drag negotiations out for all eternity.

Please enlighten us on what our bargaining chip will be if you give the company the FDA!

The point is that this pilot group is NOT in a position to go to battle over this at this time! This TA is not worth fighting over! Are we unified? Are we financially prepared? Are we motivated as a pilot group to do what it takes?

I promise you when they attempt to chop our A fund and vacation this will be an entirely new paradigm. You don't believe they are going for that on the next contract? Don't think for one minute if they raise the contractual retirement age to 65 they won't cut our B fund! This TA preserves for the next two years plus negotiation Age 60, B fund, A fund intact. You're right! A 3 percent raise is crap but if we vote this down they are going for the jugular vein and why not? The Feds have stated that age 65 is the new retirement age so they would be perfectly within their rights to ask for that in a new contract and puff there goes the B fund (7%). Its to our collective advantage to stretch it out for another 2 years and even longer if we are able!

You, my friend, need to understand that they cannot take our retirement unless we give it to them! Or, a bankruptcy judge lets them dissolve it. (that ain't happenin') We are looking for improvements, not stopping bleeding. In order to obtain improvements, we need to give the company something. They want the FDA's! If we give them the FDA, then we have nothing to give them except concessions (i.e. our retirement, vacation, etc). So, by voting yes on this TA you are actually exposing that other stuff to cuts! WAKE UP!

Utter nonsense on many levels, but the major error in what many on this board (far from the majority out there, incidentally) are thinking is that the FDA is any leverage at all. Did you listen to what JG said about scope and foreign operations at all?

In actual fact:

1. The company doesn't care that much about the FDA deal. It makes it easier, but there are multiple work-arounds to it and it is not all that much more expensive;

2. If it becomes an issue, they can always call our bluff by just using some of the thousands of pilots around the world to fly aircraft within those theaters of operation. It is true they haven't done it yet, but they hold that card.

The sky is falling - the sky is falling

Yeah, that logic worked really well with our first FDA.......

"Oh, no! Sign whatever the company wants or all our freight will be flown by the Chinese! Oh, Ooooohhhhh!"

Just curious....Can the company make the Chinese pilots or the Irish pilots sign one of those "I promise to work under the RLA" letters, prior to working in these FDAs?

If contract pilots are so plentiful around HKG, why does Cathay hire Americans?