As someone who voted no the first ten seconds the vote opened up, I've come to a new understanding.

Here’s what I’ve concluded. Our compensation package is not only about pay rate but more heavily weighted towards retirement—far more than any other airline. Our total compensation per pilot exceeds any other airline by far…it might not in pay rate, but the total value of the package is industry leading. If we turn this down now, we may get an increase in pay rate, but the total compensation I doubt would grow very much, if any…especially if the NMB has any say, and they do. Our back pay per month, exceeds all other airlines…that’s what the NMB is looking at and they won’t push for any more from the company. If we go for a TA2, we will never capture the lost investment dollars, ever, and that’s because our compensation is so heavily retirement weighed. Yeah, this TA is not what I wanted, but this is where we are. We’re screwed…. TA2 can possibly put more monthly pay in our pockets, but it’d come out of retirement…and even if it didn’t, we’d never capture the interest lost—effecting the younger guys on the property the most.

I don't feel that this TA will reduce my quality of life. I'll accept the incremental improvements and pocket the cash...after all, this is all why we are here, to make money. This is a business decision.

How will furlough due to outsourcing Express flying affect your quality of life? Will you survive the 50% reduction in pilot headcount that this TA sets up for over the next 10 years or so?

And just to clarify this isn't "fear mongering"

You're making a number of assumptions that I can't track. I also don't feel this TA will affect the way the company wet leases in the least.

Just a friendly reminder of the consequences of voting away scope, after the company announced its intentions to outsource flying long term in earnings calls.

Ask an old Astar pilot how their ending began…

You don’t believe the scope language change is a concession?

This is a 100% serious question that none of those in the furlough fear-fest camp have yet been able to answer.

Why would the company choose to furlough pilots and wet lease aircraft when it costs them twice as much as using purple tails?

And the 50% number is from??

No, I don't. I'm no expert, but I've listened to the MEC repeatedly and they say time and time again, that wet leasing costs the company 2x more money and it's not a sustainable business model. It's really only sustainable in a boom market when we're leaving freight behind on the ramp.

When you don't have an answer, make stuff up. If we are 800 pilots over, thats hardly 50%.

Hercmasterj gave good reasoning for voting this TA in. Guys keep on fixating on pay rates and the "what if" of furlough. Too many on here don't understand the the huge obstacle of the retirement fix needs to be dealt with before we can press on and address the others issues with the company.