Initial read through is disappointing, but I'll read it again.

No 3rd party verification, a good thing and I apologize for my rant 2 days ago. However, for an international guy, this isn't good. One long trip and it looks like you're into the rolling required verification?

We fly smaller planes internationally, so the switch to block hours is a no for me.

Profit sharing needed to be reworked outside of the section 6 process to make it more transparent. This drives me to no.

The rate numbers are disappointing but at least they are front loaded (TVM thingie). But, no for the back end numbers.

On the scope side, it's the same concept as C12. I'll have to read more but for now I'm not impressed.

Anyway, I think it was done to be "just enough" to get past the MEC so don't be shocked when it passes there. The ball will be in our court shortly, let the games begin :D

Ferd

Good Lord. I've been pretty quiet through most of the process so far, figuring the rumors were off base and possibly floated to make the actual TA look better when it came out. I prepared myself to look at the TA in detail with an open mind. And then it's released, and 80% of the negative rumors were spot on according to the union's own bullet points, before even looking at the actual language (which is usually where the devil hides). This thing is deeply concessionary in nearly every area other than payrates, which would be adequate on their own but not while hitched to the rest of this turkey. Worst of all, they moved the line on scope again...on the bottom end AND the top end! Have we learned absolutely nothing from the past 20 years?

Here's hoping I never even get the opportunity to vote no. :mad:

Remember our current block hours are not meeting the contractual goal.

That was the briefing on the TAJV from RD to the MEC.

Cheers
George

Am I reading and interpreting the new PS methodology correctly?

It looks like that the net effect on PS will be minus 5.74% only if all 3 years of the contract has are above 6.0 billion? Less for profits less than 6 billion

So for instance if 2016 is like 2014, we would see a PS payout of 16.7 - 5.74?

I am completely underwhelmed by this TA. For an airline that's forecast to be as profitable as Delta, I expected a lot more. I'd have gone for a 25% pay raise and retain profit sharing for starters. But this is basically a break even contract. I'm voting "NO".

The smart thing here would be for the MEC to vote NO and send it right back instead of wasting the next 2 months trying to get pilots to vote yes to something that is clearly NOT a very good TA. But then again what do I know? I'm not a Delta pilot.

I voted yes on C-2012. I am a 100% No vote this time.

If we deem this acceptable in times of record profits what will happen when we negotiate in the profitless times? Which by the way, the spread the fear crowd assures us is just around the corner.

Think long term guys - If we accept 8,0,3,3 now - what can we expect in mediocre times?


Everyone please E-mail your Reps and urge them to send it back - I just did.

Scoop

Thanks! That is what I was coming up with.

So, RA is committed to paying us 14.8% more than AA, assuming are profitability performance continues. Wow! How much more do you folks expect to get from the mediation board?

No, nope, nada, non, nyet, never, not. I said I'm voting NO didn't I?

I don't know how any FO could vote "Yes" considering the OE language.

If you have, or ever plan to have, an ounce of FO seniority - this will bite you month after month and there will be no recourse. Don't forget, we haven't even started to hit the retirement wave. LCAs are gonna be busy for decades!

That great trip to Europe you could have held - gone. Even a bad trip that would have completed your schedule without going to shuffle mode or denial -gone. Sorry, a LCA took them.

Withholding trips from FOs cannot be allowed!!!