Underrated post.
I little louder for the hearing impaired and the scared!

I think this is what you meant.

Yep, Another, "I want mine and screw the collective group rant".

Kind of like the "YES" voters. It's past time for us to work together collectively. We haven't seen "collective" bargaining yet in this negotiating cycle.

Pretty short sighted mindset, you"ll be "an old senior guy" someday if you are lucky. TA 1 wasn't perfect but there wasn't some radical Qol degradations traded for the A plan increase. In fact there were some small QOL gains. For example, the eliminating of spontaneous standbys was a big win for reserve sitters. The student line changes were a give back but it doesn"t impact a huge group. The pay rates were on the low side but that was only after the majors had huge increases announced as we were in the waiting to vote period. Bottom line is there was something for everyone and our #1 polled priority to the NC, retirement improvement, was accomplished. Rather than burn the house down and begin a multi-year search for new priorites I would think some focused improvements (legacy equivalent payrates, near full back pay, some scope agreements that capture the management emails of intent, and some improvement to the A fund transition) would be sufficient and ratifiable in the short term.

The student line changes were a give back but it doesn"t impact a huge group. Student lines are a major seniority abrogration scheme. This had sweeping impacts if all implications were actually examined.

The pay rates were on the low side but that was only after the majors had huge increases announced as we were in the waiting to vote period. Completly incorrect. The DAL TA was presented in December of 2022. This was long before Purple's Section 3 was TA'd. This was a failure by the NC and former MEC.

Bottom line is there was something for everyone and our #1 polled priority to the NC, retirement improvement, was accomplished. There was no polling conducted after the NC and former MEC got the answers they wanted. The polls were flawed and designed to get the answers that the MEC and NC wanted. The only poll that mattered was the vote on the TA which would indicate that the MAJORITY of pilots disagreed with the MEC/NC.

I would think some focused improvements (legacy equivalent payrates, near full back pay, some scope agreements that capture the management emails of intent, and some improvement to the A fund transition) would be sufficient and ratifiable in the short term. We can agree on this but attempting to continue selling TA 1.0 as some sort of win is not a good strategy.

I disagree with all of this. Come March 1, one of us is in for a rude awakening.

And your sales pitch about Scope is what? (I can hear the voices saying "the company would never do that!").
And for all the oldies that claim no-voters "cost them a million dollars"... that's horse dookie. Yes-voter crowd would cost themSELVES a million bucks by voting yes on industry-lagging narrowbody and widebody pay rates.

Stan buddy, your old guard rhetoric has done a lot to energize the young, no-voting base. If you want people to feel sympathetic about your retirement, might I suggest a different approach, perhaps?

At some point, you have to trust somebody, or you trust nobody. Perhaps the best thing we can do right now is trust the people we've elected to make their best assessment and show a little unity. Being tribal at this point is probably not the best way to work ourselves out of this problem. For the record, I did not vote for him.... But if I had the chance to do it again, I probably would. I have no interest in a Block Rep who has pre-determined a decision.


With this logic, you're good to seat LEC 26 permanent reps immediately vice waiting til Mar. Admirable