Pro/Con Papers?
 

Has anyone else heard that all or some of the 3 No voting Reps are refusing to participate in the Pro/Con papers? I sure hope this is not true as I would like to see a robust Pro/Con discussion. I intend on voting yes but would like to see some strong Con side arguments to ensure we are not missing something. I guess the Yes voters can write the Con side too but no matter how well intentioned the Reps are it wouldn't be the same as if the No voters were advocating their position.

Scoop

I don’t think there are any cons, either it met your expectations, or it fell short. The retro pay should be accurately described as a signing bonus. As far as company incentives to draw out the next cycle, the NMB provides enough incentive on their own to do that.

Geez, that sounds bad…but I haven’t heard that rumor.

I do think a lot of the cons are self-evident. But I don’t see a reason to collate them together to put everything on the table.

I’d also find it helpful to run the proposed work rule changes and rig changes through carmen and see how it optimizes historic bid packs to understand how rotations might look similar and different. I’m not sure if that’s possible, but if the company wants this thing to pass they should hand over the keys (if we don’t already have them) and let us drive the optimizer for some sampling.

Yes, being able to read well-formulated PRO/CON papers would be very helpful. If the rumors are correct that certain reps shy away from doing their elected duties, I'd find that very disturbing. Are they truly acting like a five-year-old on the playground who didn't get their way?

There are definitely some potential cons. Silver slips being only available to REG pilots effectively cuts reserve GS opportunities down, which reduces PB days, which further reduces GS. Right now on any given day a GS is given out in seniority order regardless of status. SS's allow junior REG pilots a shot at premium flying while senior RES pilots get left out. Obviously there's a ton of unknowns since this TA shakes up premium trip coverage quite a bit, and a lot depends on how aggressively the company chooses to use such options.

Another con could be that with 18 hour LC, SC assignments will significantly spike. Again, overall I view 18 hour LC as a win, but there are some negative repercussions that ideally a con paper would draw out.

The 4-year contract -- maybe longer if we go past the amendable date again -- is puzzling to me and is one of the biggest Cons IMO. This TA contains major changes to the PWA, such as VAS, premium PBS trips, Silver Slips, etc. Some might pan out quite well for the pilot group, and some my be disastrous. Lots of unknowns, and if the changes end up screwing us, well, we're stuck with them for a longer time.

I didn't see many punitive or preventative measures to protect against company PWA violations. "If company fails to do X, then Y." Thinking out loud here, but since the company despises PB days so much, then every PWA violation should result in at least one PB day deposited into the bank. Every 23.M.7 should include PB days to the bank of the affected pilot regardless of RES or REG. Fly now, grieve later, collect PB days.

A5S

You get it. Well said

You get it too. Well said

I would say “because it is a negotiation.”

Typically, you can attain more value with a longer contract. The company has to dedicate a lot of resources to the process and is willing to pay more for not negotiating each year and being able to project pilot costs.

For the pilots, it can be a plus or minus, but you can’t look at any one part including the duration and think the rest of what we agreed to would remain if duration changes.

Just on the surface it would most likely mean that reserve would go more junior in many categories. Don’t know that if it’s a con but it would definitely be a change to watch.