I don't think they are lying. And I appreciate their work. I think they did their best, but I think we can do better. Hopefully, we vote this thing down and form a new committee.

Have you ever heard a NC say they left millions on the table after they made a deal? If so, why did they make the deal? Have you ever seen deals improve after turning down a TA?

What did the Delta negotiators say? "It's a crap deal, but I'm asking you to vote for it anyway?" No, they said it was the best they could get. And I believe that our committee felt the same. But there are many of us that think the deal is sub par and it needs to be improved. It's at least a six year deal? Why sign a weak TA and have to live with it this long?

Let's get a new team in, regroup and work on a suitable deal. So what if it takes a year or two?

Your idea about voting the current TA down and forming a new committee makes a lot more sense to me than the idea of voting it down and sending the same NC back.
But I don't know the history of why previous TAs at other companies were turned down and what the end result actually was. I'm sure each case is very different with the countless variables involved making it almost impossible to predict an outcome for us based on a previous result at another airline.
As for Delta, who knows how that is going to turn out? Certainly the Delta pilots have no idea at this point. It's fourth and long and they have decided to go instead of punt. No one will know the impact of that decision until they end up with a ratified TA. Right now, I don't believe they even have an NC or a new negotiating timeline. I hope it works out well for them. But their decision has zero impact on mine.

I agree with most of your post. My point being that every time a TA is agreed upon, I'm hoping the NC of that agreement thought they got all they could. If not, why bring it forward? While I think they believe this, history has shown that many times later the union got an improved offer. This isn't always the case, if it were, there would be no risk involved.

Our NC worked hard. I can't imagine the daily beat down they receive from the company (and sometimes the union too). It's always a thankless job, people will always think of the negative repercussions of the contract rather than the benefits we enjoy. I think they are fatigued and did their best. So, let me be clear, I do not mean to speak negatively towards the NC.

I believe in "my NC speaks for me." However, that changes now. I have to look at the TA and make my own decision now. I just see nothing here but cost of living increases. I see some improvements, but with a bunch of negatives as well. It just isn't good enough and the time frame is too long.

I guess my only disagreement is the part about Delta and it's effect on us. Every major airline that improves their contract moves the industry standard. Our pay is AA plus a little. They all matter. Delta and United had pay rates over $300 in 2000. We all know the history of their bankruptcies, but we are trying to get to levels from 15 years ago.

Oh, and I just read where Delta has a new MEC chairman and NC. It's on the ALPA website. Neither here, nor there...

When does the vote close?

October 10th but remember you can change your vote.

I've been beyond disappointed that someone hasn't made a "Hitler Hates the TA" video. I still laugh at the one that somebody made after they got excessed from ANC. Something about getting the Orange scooby snack on his BNA out and back. Great stuff. Some things never get old....

How? .

it is an old joke from FDA LOA 1. The MEC kept telling us it was OK to change our vote.

Ah. I wish we could change our vote on this poll. How about a new poll every week?

Some good points worth considering G&F. So what exactly is the history of a pilot group voting down a T/A? Mixed to poor outcomes mostly with Billions lost. American, USAir, AirTran (SWA Merger) to name a few that left Millions of dollars on the table in "good" deals. They never recouped those losses and are just now, in American and USAir, just starting to claw their way back.

To your point of 6 years being too long and regrouping. For a suitable deal. Some say the size of the deal may improve, some say it shrinks, lets assume it's neither. So money gets moved around but the at the end of regrouping we are still looking at a 1.68B dollar deal. Even if it's a four year deal with the same money...well what if it takes another 2 years to get the deal?

We could be left looking at the same size deal 2 years from now, for the same money. We end up with the same duration due to the delay, but with less earnings and DC contributions over the same period.

WHY? Risk/Reward? I'd rather know the hand I was dealt than guess at one that may be dealt.