I added the "ER" for clarification.

The scope language in TA1 makes it cheaper to wet lease. That is a problem we don't need.

Say thats true. Why explicitly give them the option to increase wet lease flying and reduce the payments if they do?

Let's not **** off pinseeker, he's a NO vote, even though retiring under this upcoming CBA I think?

There are several pilots I have talked with who are ready to retire in the next 2 years, and understand how voting this down could play out in ways past their own retirement, but still they are all saying this TA is a clear NO vote. Just because of its blatant failure in contrast to our openers.

For unknown reasons to me, ALPA has methodically sold the idea (even at a previous carrier for me in 2002) that improving Scope is not worth any negotiating capital. It's an ALPA mentality, and they have succeeded in pushing that false narrative amongst many of the airlines they represent, like here.

Our Scope, now viewed through the current "leadership"'s mentality, whether current or TA'd is full of holes and will be exploited in a way that's career-ending for some here, career-altering for most. The only alternative we have been left with is voting this down resoundingly, knowing we hold a 99% strike authorization vote. The company still needs us, in our numbers. In 8-10 years, it will be a different story. Pat and the gang will be reading about it over breakfast, after sleeping soundly all night - while us suckers are out hubturning. High block hour night hubturning, the kind of flying the company will specially keep for us, while we see our best flying go away. Like Atlas 747's on HNL and CGN, but now everywhere, with 737's on our ramps domestically too. Just picture that for motivation to send this POS TA back to its creators.

This needs to be repeated. They are literally telling us what they are planning to do with our jobs and planes.

I'm not trying to **** him off, I am asking a legitimate question to a legitimate point in his post. I realize that the company tends to do whatever it wants and worries about contractual obligations later.

No need to give them permission and reduce the penalty for doing so.

I am also going to retire in the next 2 years and I am definitely a NO vote.

I know you've been around for some time. I sincerely thank you for making this decision.

Like you, some who have been here long enough to experience how the company exploits any and every section in the contract and the union's complete inability to stop it, can read between the TA lines: the company has realized amazing "gained efficiencies" (the nice way of saying pilots working harder for less pay).

Honest question from an Atlas guy. Why do you guys bring up the HNL flying we do and talk about your "best flying" going away? It's some of the crappiest flying we do here on the 747. I'll be very glad when it goes away. Is it really something you guys want?

No CGN flying for us either, other wet lease plane is going to SJU. Another crappy trip.

What I mean by our best flying is international widebody.

dera, any flying we lose, to any airline, is never a good thing - regardless of how crappy you think the trip is.

The NC clearly isn’t.