Thank you for posting this. Looks like maybe the MEC needs to diversify their sources for information relating to future plans. Apparently management’s “oh no we would never do that to you guys” did not really prevail over hard facts. That’s crazy, I can’t believe that. I mean, would executives really do that? Just show up and lie to your face like that? How bizarre. I thought everybody at the table was negotiating in good faith and would never withhold information or, worse yet, peddle lies to gain an advantage. I’m shocked in a recessionary environment that management would seek to cut fat like this and take away our QOL in favor of a miserly, regional airline style, outsource fest. You mean to tell me that upper level executives would seek to try and give away as much of our flying to lower paying airlines as contractually possible.

 

I read the March sig notes. You’re right, the lines increased over February. But 18 of 33 lines had to be bought up. Once, take your Ford and Harrison BS and shove it where the sun don’t shine. I’m so tired of dealing with you people.

 

Half this pilot group has no idea how dangerous lack of scope is. Maybe they heard about it from their mates post 9-11, while they were bidding upgrade thanks to the postal contract. While FedEx was in 4A2b, the legacy’s were furloughing again. I’m not downplaying 4A2b, but it was way better than being unemployed or flying an RJ for peanuts. While the majors are finally nailing down their scourge of the RJ, this place is actively pursuing their own version of it. I don’t give a damn if only one plane is flying a former FedEx route. That represents a stop in career progression. If you can’t see that, I can’t help you. There are a few in here that just want their retirement pie and leave. To them, I can understand their point. There are others actively trying to tell us to shut up and be cool with a survey taken 3 years and an eternity ago. If we can’t stop this camel from getting its nose under the tent, it doesn’t matter what our pay rates are. Scope is the end all be all in this negotiation. It wasn’t that way three years ago, but it damn sure is now.

 

Losing GRR to a 737 operator is just as unacceptable as losing OPO, BER, BUD, etc.

Doesn't matter if we increased frequency elsewhere or not. It's still FedEx freight that should only be flown by FedEx pilots. Period.

 

Keep in mind that all three legacies have been through bankruptcy post 9/11 and have made major strides towards work rule recovery.

I think you were trying to say “cede” not “seed”. Your misuse of basic terms makes me question your ability to understand and opine on complex issues like Scope.

 

More proof that it's NoWorkAllPlay. Just like he doesn't know the difference between "hence" and "hints". Definitely not the brightest bulb.

 

and then and than

 

As I'm on the precipice of retirement, someone junior might look at me and assume that I'm an automatic "yes" if there's a larger retirement pie in whatever TA might be presented. That's not my view, and I think there are plenty of other "senior" members who have a similar take. I voted "no" on previous TA's because of the numerous reasons that have been articulated before (full disclosure, I did vote "yes" on the 2006 TA). Since getting here in '98, our crew force's collective wisdom has been to try to take care of everyone, even those not on property yet. It certainly hasn't been perfect (especially 2001 and 2015), but I'm optimistic that the same collective wisdom still lives and will hopefully prevail. So... I'm fully prepared (expect perhaps?) to vote "no" on any TA that doesn't take care of everyone. So, I'm not willing to sacrifice work rules, scope, etc. for those junior to me just so I can walk out the door with a larger retirement. BTW, with the foot-dragging that's gone on thus far, it's entirely possible that I'll be gone before getting a chance to vote.

Recognizing the obvious self-serving aspect of the following, I'd like to offer this... why aren't we discussing, willing to draw a line in the sand, over making all TA improvements effective for everyone on property since the amendable date? The company can delay with impunity in this regard, and count the $$ for everyone that retires before a new TA implementation date. Any wonder why negotiations take so long? Looking to the future, setting this as a new precedent could be as important to everyone junior as work rules and scope, etc. On a personal note; all of my best friends here have either recently retired or will do so in the very near term. I would love to show them that we are fighting for them too.

 

As a new guy, your stance is all that us junior folks are asking for. Unfortunately, our fear lies within the mentalities of some of the posters in this thread. I just hope your mentality is the rule, and these other... uh, are just the exception to it.

 

yeah, the fact that they've been through bankruptcy and still have much better scope than we do is sad...

I don't see a single 737 with "United" painted on the side being flown by Europeans for meager 5 figure salaries like we have here.

Delta doesn't outsource their passenger flying to Atlas 747s or 767s...

Same with AA.