otter1

At the road show I was at, Art stated that the improved scope covers every plausible scenario, and by plausible he said anything that made economic sense. Art has been doing this for decades, with a depth of knowledge that is very impressive. If we turn this down, TA2 will not have better scope, and we will have lost probably tens of thousands in income by that time. Frankly you've got to trust someone, and I trust the ALPA lawyers more than anonymous people on APC.

UNSUBSCRIBE

Well, it doesnt cover codesharing, lol. Thats a pretty big hole

otter1

As I said in another post, you've got to trust someone. I trust the ALPA lawyers, yes, as that is their job and their factual explanations dismissed a lot of my fears at the road show. I trust the MEC and NC, too, who are unanimously in favor of this TA, and who feel we just won't gain more by voting no.

So how was the ALPA lawyer taking us for a spin? Was she lying to us? Is the rest of the MEC and NC being taken for a spin too or do you think they don't have our best interests at heart?

otter1

I'm no expert on code sharing but Art mentioned (and it makes sense to me) that and if the company entered into a code sharing agreement, where the other party keeps 99% of the profit doing flying we could be doing, then the CEO should be fired by the board of directors.

So let's say we enter into a code share with WOW bringing passengers from Europe to Baltimore and on through our system. Those are passengers we wouldn't have previously flown so it helps our bottom line.

I believe SW is the only one that doesn't allow any code sharing. All the other legacies have it.

Voting this TA down will not get a code sharing ban in TA2.

otter1

As someone else already posted, you misunderstood my post. I am well aware of the no reserve drops after PBS implementation, and I believe it is the biggest negative in the TA. I've stated it several times in previous posts. In fact, I live in base, often bid reserve on purpose, and drop a middle day of a block often, like I did this month.

Other than that and losing pay-protected transition, I don't see the huge qol losses others do. A lot of the rescheduling can be done now. I don't think it's going to happen very often as they then have to fill the trip you were on causing another problem, and they have to get you back within 4 hours after your original return. And you will be getting 200% at the much higher pay rates for a lot of the scenarios. It gets really expensive for the company to keep you out for more than a day, so basically it's a tool to keep the operation going after an IROP.

Reserve will not be what it is now, no doubt. There are a few mitigating factors. The "want to fly" list is an improvement, as is long call reserve.

Big picture, there are some huge gains in this contract that a lot on here aren't focusing on. I'm in favor.

Planepirate

That’s the problem with guys like astral. He didn’t fully read your post then proceeded type one of the most insanely, idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in his rambling and incoherent response, was he even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this forum is now dumber having read it.

Stan Spadowski

The union also mentioned at the road show “this is the best we can get” with regards to this TA. Sounds like they feel defeated, conceded, and tossed this TA out to the pilots knowing it would fail

Don’t buy into the few cheerleaders on here; this thing is on life support

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Super EZ E

I agree, the NC seems beat down and tired. Company loaded contract with stripping of work rules. You remove that signing bonus and it doesn't pass. ALPA wants this contract closed out.

illtake2

Who are you talking to? Everyone I talk to is a yes, it’s the 5 uneducated guys on here who are a no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Justmeagain

I think saying that you’re voting yes is unpopular in public, or on a whatsapp group. The silent majority, or those that say no, but vote yes may surprise everyone.
I heard some intelligent questions at the roadshow, but I heard some really dumb ones - especially about the X/Y list. If you have reservations, have you reached out to the NC or attended a roadshow? If you have, and are still a NO vote, fair enough. If you have not and are getting your information from others, shame on you.

I’ve heard that certain prominent members of the training department are vocal NO votes. Why? Maybe because CSIs are now considered ground training and will be outsourced (read: loss of income generating option for Instructors). Or maybe General Solicitation is going away and a more transparent system will replace it (read: my sweet deals will no longer be available to me). I think the greater transparency and oversight of premium pay opportunities is long overdue. A bunch of pilots and instructors that had their own side gig going on are about to see the playing field get leveled. Outsourcing within training departments is common. Ask around. If you want to keep the present situation going and wait, vote NO. But please start the clock and calculator going for the rest of us and make sure to recoup that lost income in TA2.