yeah that's a lot of stuff to finish in one more go around of meetings. I dont think we'll get an AIP or released on the 30th. I think we'll get more meetings to continue into next yr.
there has been some more genuine progress the last two meetings so I think the mediator will keep it going.

I default to a no vote until convinced otherwise, so guess I can say at this point I'd be a no. That said, I will read it all and decide once I have a real TA to vote on. However, the admitted lack of ugraded hotel/transportation language, adding co terminals and some other things has me concerned. The LCO might be awesome, but I need to see the details. Moveup as a PMer has really padded my paychecks 😁. I really hope the re-write is better and not just different. My hopes are high, but there are some red flags. I will trust the NC and allow the MEC to speak for me, but I will verify when I see it. I have never yoted "yes" on anything in my 20+ year airline career except to strike (twice). Hopefully they will knock it out of the park so I can break that record. We'll see.

It wasn't that long ago SWAPA was warning us about interactions with FAs on the vans and in hotels... so how bout we fix that! Why should FAs influence our van times, hotel locations, etc. Why no SWAPA Hotel Committee.... Even my regional back in the day had a union hotel committee. That's been industry standard for decades. There is a fundamental change that could really improve our QOL here. I've grown weary of the expected entourage that has to move as a group and wait for everyone to assemble.

Also, are we seriously considering having to cover multiple airports from one base... seriously??? That screams "concession" to me.

Real disability and protections while on disability are an absolute must-have

You are free to have your opinion, its a public forum, however with that freedom needs to come the realization that everyone else here has it as well, some that disagree with you.

You can vote however you want, but what I think the people you are arguing with on this and myself feel, is you cant argue something you dont know. As of now we dont know ****. Sure some details have been posted here and there, but a contract needs to be taken as a whole. I know there will be percieved concessions, this is a negotiation after all and nobody leaves one completely happy. If you think we will get 100% of everything asked for, I have a some real estate I want to sell you. Do I think we can still be industry leading and not get everything we want, absolutly we can and should. Just please read, I did say "percieved concessions" as everyone weights these things differently.

I am a firm yes/no on any vote but thats because I just havent read it, obviously since there is anything to read yet. You can feel free to call me out however you wish now, see point one above, however I havent "stiffled", "rediculed" or "insert whatever else you want here", but rather just shared my opinion on a topic.

Some very good points. I’ve also defaulted to a NO unless a TA is compelling.

And an excellent point on the hotels and transportation; SWAPA was warning about the hazards concerning FAs on overnights and in vans not so long ago, yet failed to address it with contract language. BIG FAIL.

Co-domiciles were not completely presented in the survey.

There are enough red flags based on what swapa has already said that keep me defaulted to a NO vote.

Although you’ve included your common disrespectful dings in there, I’m glad you’ve finally arrived at this conclusion. It’s a reasonable one.

Exactly.

Deja Vu all over again.

No one will come back to this or any other thread, where they had argued to settle for concessions/"sprinkles", less than we're worth etc., and admit that they were wrong after they've argued to vote YES! for a turd.

The names have changed, but the Koolies (that claim they aren't), still make the exact same arguments on these forums as they've made every other time we've voted on something in my tenure here. The end result is always the same: An industry lagging contract or side letter.

There's a reason that our contracts have always lagged the industry, and the attitude conveyed in many of these posts are it. And no, this time is not "different", I've been reading this same stuff for decades.

In spite of an industry leading, record breaking SAV, in a previously unimaginable negotiating environment for pilots, SWAPA is already accepting less than we're worth. Again.

A few of the "sprinkles" (AIPed sections) that SWAPA has already told us about (hotels, LCO, not getting rid of JA, still getting straight pay for sick or fatigue calls on premium awards, co domiciles etc), are already more than enough for for me to vote no, unless they hit the rest of it way out of the park on the big items.

I sincerely hope that I am wrong, but I suspect that there will be many more "sprinkles" added, that will reinforce my no vote when the "language" comes out.

Of course, most folks will not look past the pay rates and ignore the work rules that will, inevitably, erode them.

We'll see.

Yep....that's a good way to put it!


.

Your entire argument is blown up because I wasnt here for the last contract vote and I am waiting to decide on the contract as a whole. I haven’t changed my name and I’m not hiding from some forum troll so I guess you need to rethink your points.

Ummm, OK.......

Today's "Contract 2020 before landing checklist" email sounds like more greasing of the skids. "Competitive compensation"..." Adequate compensation for JA"...

I'm a hard liner NO with JA in the contract still. The only way I could vote for it with JAs still in the language is if 1) I can per the contract say "No." 2) compensation is 300 plus % and 3) 2 for 1 days off comped for day off lost without loss of pay.