Aero, I’m not sure if you’re serious with this. If you are, I gotta be real with you. That’s a ridiculous idea for many reasons - one being that if the No voters need to do this then so do the Yes voters. I don’t think it’s an automatic pass right now.

But more importantly, each of us PAYS a healthy premium for someone to do just what you prescribed. The UNION should be an advocate for both sides. They should be saying with total ambiguity and neutral sided thinking what the AIP offers but also what it doesn’t offer. There should be an impartial lawyer like explanarion with a recommendation and nothing more.

Citing the No voters for some specific action makes no sense.

 

I hear what you’re saying, but that’s not really the job of the MEC at this point. They’ve used their discretion and advocated heavily so far to help the NC craft something that they feel makes the most sense. Now that they’ve arrived at that point, it is completely in their wheelhouse to get behind that language which will likely become a TA. Since they (and obviously the NC) know the most about the new working agreement, it makes the most sense to listen to why they feel it’s something they’re willing to stand behind and live by for the next 5 years. Remember, we have representation that spans from approx 3 years to over 15 from a seniority standpoint. All demographics from across the years are adequately represented. Don’t just call your own reps. If someone more aligns with your seniority and you have questions relating to those issues that most impact you, call that person.
Sincerely,
J. Nides.

 

I get that. What seems to be missing is the our realization of the MEC having an obvious slant or agenda. They wouldn’t put forth an AIP they didn’t like - or at least they shouldn’t. So them being impartial isn’t reality.

Yet, history shows us that pilot groups DO actually vote down AIPs and tell the NC to go back for more. That HAS happened.

For the life of me I can’t inderstand why we are so afraid to...even if we WASTE 6 months getting the same thing, at least we tried. We’ve already waited almost 8 years - no?

I’m not sayin we should say “No, go back and rework everything.” Just one or two specific areas.

This is a NEGOTIATION - not a “here’s your offer take it or leave it.”

 

I don’t disagree on some points, but unless the NC had some slant of corruption or misalignment from what’s best for the pilots (e.g. Delta’s last failed vote), it’s pretty unusual. As far as waiting, no one has a crystal ball man, but are you willing to roll the dice on some highly likely yet unknown factors? Economic downturn, merger (would equate to freezing of all current rules/rates until integration agreed to and likely ZERO ratification bonus), or some other crazyness?? Personally, I’m not. I’m also not a doomsday prepper speaking from a fear based perspective. I’ve been cursed as an eternal realist and this is our reality. This negotiation has pressed on for 2 1/2 years at major substandard W2s. Did they fix a lot? Hell yes, but there’s definitely more to be fixed still. Remember, our peers have cycled through several contracts since bankruptcy, and this is our first. Rome wasn’t built in a day, nor was the best Legacy, LCC, or ULCC pilot contract. Our NC has negotiated for this entire time. They have now come to the MEC with what they feel is a reasonable proposal. The Negotiating has taken place! It’s not take it or leave it, it’s a please express your well thought out and informed opinion by voting yes or no. It’s as democratic as the constitution.

 

They played you like a fiddle too right? I mean you do work here (your cheap labor)? I'm looking for some logical path to a contract if this gets voted down. Im betting you don't have one that makes any sense. Because if your plan b is vote no and see what happens that just doesn't fly. You have no plan b. got it.

 

That is the quintessential question - are any of us willing to risk it?

But let me ask, how did all these other carriers go through one and sometimes multiple contract negotiations while we remained on a 2007 version?

More importantly, why don’t we vote no and demand a shorter contract duration? It’s the one item that we can get given we caved for PBS (which the company introduced last minute).

Being a realist, I’m sure you know that our current cycle - negotiations every 5-8 years - will have us ALWAYS behind. We’ll never catch up. Three and maybe 4 cycles from now we’ll still be behind everyone else who have found ways to negotiate more often and more favorably.

Sooner or later, to catch up, something has to change. Only way we have change is if we force it. The company will NEVER give us anything - we gotta demand it. We gotta let them know they cant further their agenda of money making (by IPO or sale or merger or expansion or whatever) without our cooperation. And it’s gotta be NOW with as favorable the conditions are than later when conditions, as you so aptly observed, could be worse.

 

Ah, no. It would be vote no and remove more gold from their pool. #kthxbai

 

Right. lets give them 5 million more a month and 75million. This is going nowhere. you win. Im out. Millennials, your going from 80 grand to 225 grand (when u upgrade) and your p!ssed because its not 235. Unbelievable! I just hope some of you step up and get involved after the ratification.

 

Where in the F are you getting $225? Have you even bothered looking at the pay scale from the AIP bullet points? If it were the 08/2016 proposal, then you’d be close, but a year 4 Captain is making $206 not $235/hr (which is JUST average, not leading). Pretty F-ing big difference in pay rate.

 

Guess we know who one of the 200+ credit company golden boys is...some of us have never w#0red ourselves to this company and never will.

$206 x 900 hours = $185,400.