Pretty concerned myself. Read the letter, IMO, no info that would help decide a vote either way. Comes across as a little to PC to me, talking about the integrity of the MEC, Reps, etc. I dont think their integrity has really been in question, so why bring it up?

JM states that his understanding was that the MEC wasnt going to sell the TA, but I feel otherwise. And, he seems to be doing a sell job himself. Not attacking the person, just the ideas.

Either our Reps are in the dark about the negative aspects of the TA, or they are weaklings, or I am out to lunch. Time will tell. Just like with the FDA LOA; time has shown that agreement was not a very good one.

I guess that was my point, he is trying to let his members know his position and he in fact has more to add with his recent direct engagement with an NMB member that he obviously thought was worth repeating.

As for "now the Company knows" do you really think any of this is not already in their knowledge bank? Of course it is and it highlights the fact that going to the NMB, as Bruce Y. says in his video, is not the be all end all. IMO, we would be much better off if we could generate enough momentum to get a full CBA done WITHOUT ever seeking NMB help. Is that possible ? I don't know but it sure would be nice, as the NMB does not make a great CBA, WE DO.

I'm sure that management, expects it to take that long. But, to advertise that WE expect it to take that long under the current "good political environment", is self defeating. IMO.


I could not agree with you more. That's exactly why I don't like giving up any leverage we have right now, without getting a complete CBA. Or at the very least, get as many items non scheduling/hours of service related items, fixed now.

I just don't see a 3% raise(that we would most likely get, anyway) as an equal trade for the efficiencies that the company is going to gain with the new FDAs.

To be fair, it is 3% plus the asap and foqa programs, two things that we have been trying to obtain for quite some time. Yeah they should have been implemented long ago, but for whatever reason have remained beyond our reach for some time. You can't discount those gains just because they should have been a given.

ASAP and FOQA is not a gain just like years of service is not a raise.

The company should want these programs as much as we do. No capital should be spent to get these programs.

..........+1

Safety programs such as ASAP and FOQA are mutally beneficial to the Corporation and the pilots. So why are we expending bargaining capital on these two programs?
The Corporation wants to open two new FDA's and do not want them to be manned by junior pilots? That sounds great but shouldn't the rest of the aproximately 4200 pilots get something out of the deal besides a cost neutral 3% raise, plus a 1% bonus(capped at $2600),oh and maybe another 3% if we decide not to open negoiations. Are we really that cheap to buy off???
This is a job and an economic venture for all of us as well as the Corporation so if they want something then I say "SHOW ME THE MONEY!!"
After the last FDA LOA passed and they still could not fill the FO seats what did the Corporation do??? They sweetened up the deal to be more attractive!!
Maybe if no one bid it they would have done so MUCH earlier but we will never know because we did not hold the line.

The issue here is does this TA address the primary concerns that the Wilson polling reflected and the NC told us that they understood loud and clear?

I think not.

There is no reason that fixes for 4A2B, deviation banks and the other top concerns of the membership could not be addressed in this TA. The company is treating us like the ignorant pilots that we have managed to prove that we are.

They get their #1 priority fixed.... opening a new European domicile along with getting contractual approval to open another in just about any European country except Frogville. We get a measly 3% pay increase along with a 1% bribe. Talk to your MEM A300 and B727 buds about the effect of 4A2B and how the 1% bribe will affect their lives.....

It seems that the company expects us to vote to accept anything that is presented to us. Unfortunately, it seems that they are closer to reality that we would care to admit.....

I think that the sales pitch of "My Negotiating Committee speaks for me" should be modified to "My Negotiating Committee speaks for me because I'm too lazy to get the facts for myself."

Flame on....

Just my opinion on this abomination.

I see the % pay increase as something we are going to get either now or later. And if it is later it will be wrapped up in a time value of money adjustment. Same as the last contract. So the monetary increases in the TA are irrelevant for the decision making matrix. We give up a significant number of flight hours that are currently spread across the spectrum making international operations happen from stateside domiciles.

The real groups that should be up in arms about this TA after seeing what the 777 is doing and forecasting forward to project what the landscape will look like are the ANC and LAX guys. Two years down the road LAX looks like an excess to zero. There can be no reason for a crew base on the west coast when the 777 is hauling large loads to Asia and there are MD11s already there. There will continue to be a much smaller ANC base but flying will be HKG, EWR and OAK. For the more jr ANC crew force the choice will be to go to HKG in the 11 or move back a pay position. Do any of you see primary vacancy filling or even secondary bids being filled to ANC if we are standing up 100 slots in Asia? Certainly not in the long term. We just will not need as many wide body pilots as we do now, so another overall loss of pay. We will have lots of load capability already in theater and a ultra long range plane with tons of lift, much more efficient.

So unless you are going to move to the FDA and you think this is really the last best we can do offer (since the last two didn't end up really being the last best offer), then why should I vote yes? We give up 15 months of NMB credit, less flying hours across the force and a real loss of international flying for domestic based crews. And we get...good will and our allowance now rather than later?

I'm not sure the negotiating team saying that they were involved with the last FDA loa is helping their case with me. I thought this was a whole new group of people. I was disappointed in the conference call to hear some of our team is still the same team as last time.

I will add that they sweetened up the deal by bypasses our bargaining agent, the Union, and unilaterally offered a couple of improvements while the voting had not closed or, the bid had not been filled. Cant remember exactly. And when a greivance was filed concerning their direct bargaining with the crew force and not with the Union concerning these unilateral improvements, the grievance was ignored and then they signed on to the deal with the Company. So much for creating unity and being our buffer between the Company and the crew force. You have to wonder whos side our side was looking out for.