Ok. But, Alaska has had their guaranteed 5% for years (5% min, up to 10% max) and our rates have always been above theirs. Now we come out of negotiations focused just on rates, and we are below their rates+bonus. Not a new bonus. Not a bonus achieved in long term negotiations. Our rates should have at least accounted for that.

I'm just not willing to say we are above Alaska at this point.

Why are you speaking in the past? 3rd quarter they DID turn a profit (no matter if its not what it usually is, your statement is still wrong). They are expecting to turn a profit 4th quarter. Airlines (including B6) are still projecting high demand and profit in 2023, even in the face of a possible recession. Do you purposely say this to just fit your opinion? Educate me then, because the 3rd quarter financial report, 4th quarter projections, and financial media must be lying to me.

Oh this is the best one lol. Where do you think the extra medical and parking expenses came from? Was that pay rate, profit sharing, and per diem? No? So things outside of those 3 items were in fact on the table? it would have been real easy to then throw in 5:15 since Alaska got it, as well as a 401k snap up…ESPECIALLY since they failed to get one of the main pillars in their 3 pillar plan, and fell short on the other main pillar. They could have. But they didn’t.

Do the math and then educate me on what I’m leaving on the table. What % PS are you going to negotiate and for how long? If the company even budges on that. Just to start negotiating again one year from now. Like I said, don’t think for a second that this company won’t tell us to pound sand, pull the offer, and go lean until the JCBA. That is absolutely a possibility. Then what? You sure showed them didn’t you. Or, who knows, maybe we get a little more out of this. But when? There’s a point where we start leaving money on the table. My opinion is just that, an opinion based on all the information I’ve gathered. I suggest you guys do the same and vote accordingly.

This is where you are just wrong. They cannot afford to do that. Attracting/retaining pilots is already at a critical level. A deal being shot down would make that spiral out of control, 190 parking would accelerate, the seniority list would shrink, causing more people to jump ship, making the problem worse, causing revenue to drop, etc. The company has about 3-4 years of hiring waves at majors where they aren’t an attractive career destination. This TA lets them navigate that time because it’s “good enough” to get some regional guys to decide to come.

there is zero chance they let this die until the JCBA if it’s voted down. Again, there is no reason they would have agreed to the short term extension if they didn’t want to. ALPA reps don’t deny that when you ask. If you listen to their sales pitch, they don’t mention it. You just gotta dig a little with them. After a little digging with multiple reps, and sparring back and forth, I’m an even stronger no vote. Don’t always buy the sales pitch from a salesman.

this is the same FUD tactic they used in CBA1 and subsequent LOAs. “How long until you think the company will come back and agree to something that’s worth the time lost.” This isn’t a new or unique tactic. ALPA does this at all airlines. Don’t fall for it.

It was a 2 month negotiation based on an accelerated timeline. Would I have liked more? Yep. Do I love this? No. But when I evaluate the full context of it all, it just makes more sense for me to vote yes rather than no. One other thing I’ll mention that bothered me is the lack of Delta NEO rates being included. Go to the EWR roadshow tonight.

Let’s pretend you’re right and the company will never pull the offer, park some 190’s and go lean. We send this back, how long until we have another offer? What items do you think we’ll achieve? There will come a point where we start leaving money on the table…especially if we have reps resigning thus further extending the timeline. Bottom line, I can live with this for the next 2-2.5 years. If you can’t, vote no. Everyone has a vote. Im not gonna keep wasting my time on a forum going back and forth with the same 5 No voters. I just finally offered a different opinion because I see straight up non factual bullish!t being spread.

I’ve spent probably greater than 10 hours talking to reps and NC members. Couldn’t make it to a roadshow but I got the gist, and then some. Definitely got the sales pitch/talking points. And still vehemently disagree. And what’s most concerning is some of the reps saying “yeah I personally don’t think it’s enough, but I’m voting yes because the polling data is so low and this satisfies the majority of the pilot group, so therefore I’ll vote yes.” Well, if they did their job and properly educated this pilot group on how far behind this TA puts the group and re-polled as they should have, and actually used the leverage instead of folding on the 2 yard line (again), then there’s a really good chance this wouldn’t actually satisfy the pilot group. Many people like you don’t actually like/love it but out of fear of the unknown and being hyped up on JCBA hopium and could have achieved a lot more.

Another rep told me he 100% agrees with me, and that I need to help them educate the pilot group because the collective self worth of this pilot group is so low based on their polling data. After I picked my jaw up from the floor, I pointed out that was their job and they completely failed to do it, and the subpar polling data is a direct reflection of their subpar education campaign. He didn’t disagree and said it’ll be better next time for the JCBA. Of course it will. It was discussed, but one person did NOT want to send out updated educational materials and update the CCG with profit sharing value info. His name rhymes with Chris Penney. And here we are.

Another rep said if delta ratified before this agreement, it would have upped their ask even more, but the uncertainty makes it hard to justify. Well, if it doesn’t ratify, it’s because it’s not enough, which will drive the price up even further. Not for B6 though, as the snap up won’t really capture it with the way it’s structured.

It’s also funny when they say the company has no problem paying delta NB rates but they won’t out of uncertainty what those rates will be. If that were the case, the snap up would simply put the group at delta rates whenever they go into effect. They could have written it that way. Instead, they agreed on about the most disadvantageous (to the pilot group) language for the snap up, making it effectively worthless. Shocker, I know. But B6ALPA still sells it.

Money isn’t left on the table. Lost money would be captured in retro/signing bonus, and then some…just like it always is. Your same arguments are tired and have been used for decades, especially this last decade. And in the last decade, with a rising tide, every single no vote has yielded significantly better contracts, despite the union saying it was impossible or unlikely to get more, and that if they did get more, the time value of money outweighed the gains. Go ask delta guys how they would be sitting if they voted yes in 2015. Go back and read their boards and their yes voting arguments (sound similar to yours) and look at the alpa fear/uncertainty/doubt spread back then. They voted no. They got way more.

Absolutely brutal.