GetRealDude

This is a BAD DEAL. Simple.

I've read the TA from cover to cover, seen the videos (sell job), and continue to be amazed at the depth of concessions in work rules. It just gets worse by the day.

Pay raise. On paper it is a pay raise on DOS. But it's basically a COLA adjustment. That's it. Add in the fact that we all pay taxes, the raise is further diminished and barely treads water against inflation. Is this what you deserve? You will gain based on today, but you haven't gained anything. Company win for standard delay tactics.

Signing bonus. Substandard. Look at your union dues paid from the originial amendable date, regardless of seat. You've paid more in union dues (after taxes) than you will receive in the "signing bonus" (after taxes). You paid for this TA with your dues. Underwhelming and disappointing. Effectively there is little to no "retro" associated with the signing bonus. The company played their hand perfectly. You and I lose here. Company win.

Retirement. A plan is a diminishing commodity without a cap raise. The B plan is PATHETIC with a 1% bump, wait four years, then another 1% bump. Add the "Dying Trying" Program of working your butt off in the last 2 years of active service to chase money from your DSA or total earnings, you'll wish you retired earlier. Company achieves huge savings and productivity. Company win.

Scheduling. Swiss cheese - full of holes so big you could drive a truck through them in efficiencies gained. Make no mistake about it, the new VTO program is PBS lite. Just read it. It's a joke. Company win in a big way.

Per diem. Minor improvements. We've been behind so long on per diem actually covering expenses that it hardly feels like any gain. Neutral. Cost of doing business.

Deviation bank changes. Better than we had, but still wouldn't consider it a gain. IF everyone actually took the scheduled DH, then that's the cost of doing business. Giving you a 50% utilization of saved money is a continuing gain for the Company and added flexibility for the pilots. But it's better than it was. I consider it neutral at best.

Healthcare. More out of pocket expenses. The actual figures are TBD based on the ACA provisions yet to take effect. Your paltry pay raise is further diminished. Company win.

Duration of 6 years. Wow, really? This is a HUGE win for the company. We're stuck with this for 8-10 years. If this is voted down, it must change. Min reduction to 5 years.

Missing items. How about a "Me too" clause so we never lose ground in pay rates. This is a good faith measure by the Company to keep us at the top of the industry. Yes, it costs money but gains in goodwill in the long run.

Missing item. This TA is ridiculously long and the company has proven it will further delay after the amendable date. A minimum 3% bump every year until a deal is done has merit. It removes the need for a signing bonus and it keeps the crew force from falling behind in COLA. Again, it costs money but it has advantages. Disagree with SL's assessment on this.

Missing item. How about this one? Tie in Fuel Sense savings to an end of year bonus. You want added productivity from the pilots? Show me the money.

Do yourselves a favor and check out PurpleTA.com -- it's a grassroots summary created by YES and NO voters for the crew force to see the big picture and not get lost in the legalese or swayed by the slick videos. I had nothing to do with it, but I appreciate the efforts on our behalf. It's very well done.

As each day passes, I'm further disappointed. Truly blown away that our hard earned dues money gave us this subpar TA. I question the MEC's leadership and the NC's focus on our basic openers. How was it so easy to lose their way? Simple. Delays, demands, refusals, and the NMB. Company stood their ground, we retreated and blinked.

The above is not a comprehensive analysis of the TA. But it speaks volumes IMO.

Voting this thing down is not the end of the world. It's simply not good enough for the productivity and profits we've generated.
The MEC and NC need to get back to work! I expect some players will not be present and that's a good thing. It will take some time.

Forecast (unscientific): The YES voters will primarily come from the most senior blocks trying to max retirement in their final years (TA is tailor made for them). Other YES voters are the ones who blindly follow the union and have no interest in actually seeking an educated position on the TA. The final category of YES voters are the ones that simply see the "upfront" money and jump on it - DOS pay raise and signing bonus. They're just tired of waiting.

The NO voters are the pilots who see the TA for what it is ... concessionary. They've done their homework and see it as insulting and substandard for our efforts in the past, present, and future.

The only questions you have to ask yourself if you've actually read the TA are these:
1. Are you COMPLETELY SATISFIED with what you see as a whole?
2. Does the TA provide the improvements you expected?
3. Did the MEC and the NC actually deliver you a TA to be proud of?

Sadly, none of these.

Daniel Larusso

I doubt any system would change things with respect to specific credit hour total, but there should be perspective on that. Even our current SIG line build process is constrained by company generated line targets so it's something that has and will be with us no matter what. Any system, current on new runs its points biases within those parameters. Most of us don't really care what the computer is actually doing, we prefer our interpretation of what it's doing. However with respect to point scoring, the systems I've seen aren't weighing inputs vs credit hours from a scoring standpoint. For instance let's say the credit range is 85-90 hours. It's not going to bypass a higher scoring line in favor at say 85:30Ch in favor of a lower scoring line at 90CH. Now a key in all of this is the pilots inputs positive and negative and whether those inputs are valid. Remember these systems just look for the highest scoring line within the target solve range. If you or the scheduler put in inputs that aren't available, the highest score it can get is zero no matter what it does. That is true under the present Vto system as well where the only hand inputs are the schedulers moving our inputs from one computer to another.

Brad4est

"Do yourselves a favor and check out PurpleTA.com -- it's a grassroots summary created by YES and NO voters for the crew force to see the big picture and not get lost in the legalese or swayed by the slick videos. I had nothing to do with it, but I appreciate the efforts on our behalf. It's very well done."

I agree it is a commendable job, but there are still errors. You really have to read the TA yourself. One error that I found right away:

"• Updated language on to correlate with the new Section 24 provisions (6.A.)
• Enhanced air travel benefits during relocation (6.C.12.)
- We will now have a relocation air travel expense bank for housing searches and relocation."

Under the current contract on Package #1, your travel (7 Round trips) is under the same rules as we have, i.e. over 5 hours qualifies for Business / First. It is now specified as economy:

"the Company’s travel vendor shall obtain a fare quote (“reference fare quote”) for the total cost of economy class air travel for the pilot’s entire traveling party between the pilot’s currently assigned base and the pilot’s new base."

With your bank, I presume you could buy 1 or two business / first class tickets, but when I had my move, my wife got 7 First class round trip tickets. (Might have been a mistake on my part letting her do that, but that's another story.)

So, I personally don't see that as "Enhanced air travel benefits during relocation"

But, I could be wrong.

FlybyKnite

That's what the MEC said. Check page 7 of the MEC official highlights document.

Brad4est

So the defense of the website being wrong in their own analysis is that they simply accepted and copied what the MEC highlights said?

Sad. If that is true, then it brings into question anything else they have to say.

Raptor

I disagree with that. As I understand it, the analysis uses NC statements, Q&A answers, and the highlights document as a "true" starting point. What the analysis highlights are things left unsaid or ramifications.

When I watch solely the roadshow video, while I'm underwhelmed at the pay raises and don't like the retirement section, I'm a major yes voter. It takes looking at the concessions and looking at the ramifications that bring the whole thing into perspective which converts me to a NO voter.

I know nothing about section 11 so I have to rely on having things pointed out to me. I know little about FDA issues, so I may not know how seemingly minor or innocuous changes (like HILO) may have outsized impacts. I overlooked the relocation benefits changing from 7 first class trips to economy that you posted.

While the www.purpleTA.com analysis may not be perfect, I don't expect it to be. The person who wrote it didn't have the benefit of an army of people behind him like the company or ALPA has. I don't disagree the author used NC highlights as a starting point and didn't assume that each highlight may be a lie or incorrect.

I like reading something that brings up points I may have not thought about. It's the only thing out there right now that presents the good, bad, and ugly. I think it's useful.

FDXAV8R

Maybe we could all pool 1.9% of our pay and hire someone to do comprehensive unbiased analysis of the TA for us. Then they could present us all the information both NEGATIVE and positive and let us make up our minds, rather than tell us half the story and tell us how to vote.

YES voters--you have spent over $7 million dollars of our money and are now actively selling us this wholly inadequate TA. You continue to spend our money with professional videos, talking points, hosting meetings with a clear agenda to sell this as great deal and actively suppress the minority report.

I'm not disloyal, I can tell you in the last 3 years I haven't done any extra, no VBB, and I'm a member of the PAC. You had my support all the way, even after voting yes, but once you started selling this as a good deal you completely lost all my support and respect.

I have a lot of faith in the crew force and your utter failure may have actually unified us to stand up for once and demand what we have earned. Still my faith and trust in you is gone. Too much cubicle time isn't good for any pilot, in my opinion it is time for you YES votes to go. I hope the NO votes can take the lead and I trust them to keep any YES votes they have faith in and any NC members they trust and restart this process.

In todays environment of pilot shortage, completely mismanaged staffing, training challenges, cheap fuel, rapidly improving airline contracts, low interest rates and increasing efficiencies; I think taking our time and being patient will only strengthen our position and improve the deal we will eventually get.

Just as I hold the Union Yes votes accountable for what they do, I hold myself accountable for what I do. I will support the new effort and new team. The company can't buy my loyalty, vacation or days off. All of us are accountable to ourselves and unlike a lot of people I actually have faith in my fellow crew members. We all know there are a few people who always have excuses for their failures whether it's their performance in the airplane or their personal conduct. I don't use their poor performance in the plane or outside the cockpit as an excuse for myself to have poor performance and/or conduct.

It is really simple--I hold the union accountable and I hold myself accountable--it is really simple--give it a try-- it helps me sleep better at night and I'm less fatigued.

MaydayMark

New 18.5 hour non-stop!*?


Air India proposes world's longest non-stop flight between Bengaluru and San Francisco | Daily Mail Online

CloudSailor

This is exactly how I feel, and why it is an uphill battle for the dissenting votes. It would be nice if this TA was 'good enough' to stand on its own merit. It is like politics, and those with the most air-time and money for advertising, make their voice heard the loudest. We should all be able to analyze, without the videos and roadshows, with only Q&A for clarification, to reach the more reasonable and oft repeated 'less emotional' decision. However, the production geared towards this passing does play on emotions. I don't hold it against the NC or the MEC, it's the way this process works on ALPA and other properties. One can only hope that such a dedicated group, affected so deeply and long-term by this vote, would educate themselves by reading the 600 page document. Yeah, it's not an easy read at times, but it is worth the investment. I can see it already "but, but, the videos said that the company couldn't do that...".

cargofast

This guy gets it.