Your ex vice mec chair. At least that's the story he told us in the JS. That he got fired, your Union got his job back, and he quit before it could happen again. All for writing up too much maintenance. His story, not mine.

Was this the same guy who tried to transfer hydraulic fluid between systems in flight and then land with locked brakes?

yes, vote NO.

Sounded like the MEC was caught off guard when he was questioned on what would happen with min days off if PBS falls though.

All in all they just said how we are among the top tier when it comes to compensation and couldnt push for more than what we got.

Crazy that the MEC isn't 100% sure what will happen if the thing that hasn't been negotiated yet and that they weren't there to talk about but both parties are trying hard to make happen falls through. Shocking.

And I believe he said the best they could get in an extension which still, in most ways, is in the top 3 of all regionals. Many of which seem to be locked in for quite awhile whereas TSA will be back in about 2 years with an opener.

Nope. I'm still voting no. I kept hearing "this is the trend at the regionals". Why do we have to fall in line with the trends? The industry is changing rapidly especially at the regional level. Crappy companies won't be able to staff properly for much longer with crappy pay and crappy qol.

If you're leaving tsa in the next year or two, it makes no sense to vote yes on this. Hold out for a bigger signing bonus, an immediate pay raise not a year from now, 12 min days off none of this 11 days off we're getting now... Then get some other goodies with pbs negotiations.

Staying here till you retire??? Want to possibly be stuck with this for the next 8 years... There are no guarantees we will get anything substantial out of pbs negotiations so it's very well possible you will be stuck with this dung for a long time.

The nc and mec were apparently told if this doesn't pass, there is no next offer and the company will drag out negotiations like last time.... Well duh, of course the company would say that. Were we expecting the company to tell us if it doesn't pass that they will get right back to the table and negotiate something better? Of course not because it would be shot down immediately.

The times are changing, people. Partners are going to be dishing out more money to keep the feed coming. They'll have to.

We've got nothing to lose and everything to gain, for ourselves and for the industry. Casting my no vote as soon as I get home.

I thought he said if there is a no vote the company has indicated they don't have a backup plan, but there are no guarantees either way i.e. they could come back with a better offer or go to negotiations. Basically we we would be in unknown ground with a no vote.

I think I know the answer but with the abundant mention of the MRJ in this proposal like the extension of the pay scales and addition of guaranteed placements, is there something the company or even the union knows that we don't, how do they come up with 20 from 10. Why not 30 or 40? How do they plan on placing it in service with its scope issues? I mean if they're placing it for us to vote on might as well understand it. Seems like a carrot for a yes vote.

Talk of the MRJ means nothing to me. Smoke and mirrors man.

If you're leaving the company in a year or two it makes equal sense to vote yes. They said the company intends to go into section 6 if we vote no. I'd expect a minimum of a year before another TA in that case.

And we have to compare trends because that is a realistic projection of the current negotiating environment. It is still slightly negative. We don't have to worry about being "competitive." We'll have the highest first year pay and if that gets trumped and they stop filling classes, guess what? They'll have to come back to the table again and ask to give us more. We'll already have our soft gains and we'll get the hard gains of pay raises or whatever thing is popular with the kids trying to decide where to go. Or we could end up like Mesa and Republic. Your choice.

On the conference call ZB made it clear that you shouldn't vote yes out of fear. That a no vote would put us in unknown ground as the company has given no real indication other than a general statement about section 6. They could just as easily decide to make another offer.