The logic that negotiating a second TA is not sound because locking in this TA in case we have another 9/11 may seem valid BUT... if we have another tragic industry event you and I both know our pay is getting slashed anyway (like it was twice before).

I don't want to trade widebody JV scope so I can be an e190 captain. That's robbing a very large Peter to pay a very small Paul.

 

FEAR

UNCERTAINTY

DOUBT

Good valid opinion.

Carl

 

As I see it, the problem with your reasoning is that, if Johnny Jihad does what you say in the beginning, all bets are off the table either way. The company is STILL going to come after us. If we pass this TA, they will come for that much more and we will still be in the same boat. This would be a force majeure event and if you think there is that amount of furlough protection for the initial events fallout, I think you are sadly mistaken.

I refuse to live in fear of that or something like that happening again.

Denny

 

Please read about the Virgin Atlantic global production balance. You're not getting the whole story from the NO crowd. If I was only hearing their side of the story I would feel the same as you.

This TA does give automatic compliance in the Atlantic. It does allow them to draw down an additional 4.5ish roundtrips per day in bundle 1. It does allow them to replace all of our airplanes with FTB's hypothetical c-150

BUT

If the do all that they have to maintain those WB hours elsewhere on the globe (global production balance). The language specifies they must be twin aisle (WB) block hours and they cannot be drawn down.

CG'a logic is sound. Sell high and let's do it again in 3 years. We're not selling you out. We are moving the ball down the field 1 first down at a time.

 

side note. 2 narrowbody FOs (above) are voting yes against their better judgement, meanwhile ive talked to 2 senior CA's age 63+ that are voting NO refusing to give in for the quick money. What is the world coming to hahahaha. Im beside myself right now.

 

After everything you have been thru you would think you deserve more. Last 15 years was bad and thats an understatement, If we have another 911 our contract can be tossed and the company can force things down our throat so fast that we could only hope for a 3year NMB delay, but as ALPA loves to say that was the best we could do during bankruptcy. So don't think that by getting this TA you are safe, the company already knows how to crap on any contract we have and any 911 event can make the company use forced majeure to get out of the contract. This is the most profitable I have ever seen an airline and its time to pay us back with no concessions.

 

So NYC7ERB. Say about 1400 FO trips a month.

With 30 new hires plus say 5 new Captains a month, all needing about 14 days of OE, at 3.3 days per trip, it's about 4.2 trips or say 4 trips per pilot.

4 trips a month x 35 pilots is 140 trips. 10% of the 1400. Take 75% of that any it's 105 trips removed or 7.5% of the trips in PBS for a NYC7ERB.

Now how many people does this affect?
If senior pilots bid 4 LCA trips per month with no concern about destination, length of trip, etc, you're talking 35 out of 411 pilots are holding LCA trips. Now, only 9 will be able to do so. There will be the 26 pilots (6% of FOs) who no longer get to bid LCA. "Boo hoo and screw you anyways you good for nothing scamming lazy pilots" says Pro TA crowd.

But then pilot #100, #200, #300, #400, plug, go to bid. They've got 105 less trips to bid. If the LCA are senior, those might be 105 less good destination trips. Or 105 less weekends off trips. Or 105 less Christmas off trips.

And given we don't know which trips they'd pull, #1 might not get the trip they wanted. So from #1 to the plug, or 100%, of the FOs are negatively affected compared to the current system.

 

I hope we get parked so we don't have these concessions.

 

I'm not voting against my better judgement. I'm voting because of my careful judgement.

CG makes some very good points. Your career stands to gain significantly under this deal yet you are afraid of it. You mention scope as a concern - yet WB jobs are not at risk (maybe at risk of being reallocated from Europe to Latin/pacific/Africa, but not lost). There is a strong herd mentality that is choosing to hear what they want to hear. I'm not telling you what to think, but there is a lot of misunderstanding out there about this deal. A lot of FUD is being spread around on the NO side as well.

 

If that happens whichever "contract" we've got will be toilet paper.

You make hay when the sun shines, when it rains, you ain't gonna make hay.