Is this TA Designed to Fail?
 

Are there some Jedi mind tricks at play here? Is this all going according to the script? Are we being played by the NC/MC? Is a resounding “No” vote precisely what the NC/MC wants / needs as proof the leverage exists and is real? As it stands, it seems the only tangible data driving decisions are outdated surveys, limited polling, questionable PDRs, etc. A resounding “No” sends a very strong signal to the Company that current TA in all forms is untenable.

An overwhelming rejection of this TA may embolden and arm the NC to better negotiate with the Company.

The whole thing stinks and for the life of me I can’t fathom any other rationale for such an abject failure of a TA being presented to this pilot group. I’d like to think our NC and MC are smarter than we’re giving them credit for.

I think it IS designed to fail. INTENTIONALLY designed to fail by the MEC? Nope. No reason for them to WANT to have the pilots lose all faith in their motivation and competence.

Is there any data on instructor application rates since an LOA/AIP/TA rumors leaked? Haven’t heard it mentioned in a town hall…

I don’t believe it was. I think after watching town halls and roadshow, these guys are all really bad at what they do. They are the “best and brightest” Union volunteers who have no life. They aren’t remarkable people by any stretch of the imagination. Seeing Mike Hamilton in person was very disappointing, not that I expected much. They are in over their heads and live the Union life for years. They think it’s a home run. This caliber of person lives a pretty unremarkable life. No real success. We got their best and it’s pretty f-ing terrible.

I think Occam’s Razor needs to be applied here. The simplest explanation is that in order to produce this TA, your MEC and NC had to be checked out and clueless. And tbf, your pilot group had to be asleep at the wheel to allow it happen.

If they wanted a no vote in order to produce evidence that convinced management you guys weren’t settling for a turd, they would have recommended a no vote as a MEC instead of doing the opposite and trying to sell it. To do what they have done risks them all being recalled and even possibly (unlikely) a DFR suit.

I really doubt this theory. Intentionally creating a bad deal would be a huge waste of everyone’s time, representational negligence, and worthy of recall of anyone involved. Further, publicly stating you don’t think a better deal is possible would undermine your desire for a “resounding” no vote to show management, and possibly even risk it passing in a general vote.

I think more likely they sort of got lost along the way. These negotiations have been going on for a long time- through COVID, the Pandemic LOA, and the economic fallout of 21-22. Those are pretty monumental episodes. I think they got really distracted by COVID- they believed the company was really going to furlough 4,000+ of us- then weren’t quick enough to adjust the goalposts once inflation started kicking us in the shorts to the tune of 8%/year.

For their part, I think the company also needs a little more time for this new reality to set in. If they really want to be the best, there would be nothing more antithetical to that goal than giving us a sub-inflationary raise, then turning around & making record profits within the year. They’re only going to take thousands of new pilots & create the next generation of salty FUPM dogs in record time.

Designed to fail? No. But certainly not adequately thought through. IMO, this deal is actually a long-term loser for both sides.

If they want to argue this we should audit all of the applications submitted for number and quality to validate this argument.

From the swarmy "we know what is better for you" tone of the roadshows I am not entirely sure they fully understand what is actually written in the TA. Even reading it to them verbatim they won't believe it if it contradicts their PowerPoint or faq. I am not expecting them to be lawyers but their interpretation on the slides doesn't jive with the actual language in the TA. It appears they have been patting themselves on the back for producing a TA instead of thinking critically on why the company was fighting so hard for certain changes. The tone is changing some and I feel it slowly dawning on a few of them that this isn't going well.

I wanted to believe this was a show to boost leverage but I think their aim point was way off on the goals of a TA from early on. They think an hour or two of add pay absolves a lot of sins.

They’re too incompetent to plan something like that.

The reality is that Kirby needed the PI problem fixed, but Hamilton couldn’t give him a LOA/MOU without opening up the entire CBA. So they cooked up this TA2022, which really only fixes the PI problem, at the expense of the rest of the items everyone is aware of.

I doubt it’s costing Kirby a dime, even with the extra coin they’re throwing at the PI problem.

Well, beyond that it kinda freezes the current instructor group from considering going back to the line for premium bc they MIGHT get a big raise in TK.

In other words, it helps keep instructors in limbo just to get through the summer.

I absolutely think that's a part of why they did it when they did it, it temporarily serves a HUGE function whether it passes or fails.

You give em way to much credit...

Yup - company’s problem solved pass or fail…at least in the short term. The recent vacancy bid showed lots of instructors drop their captain bid and tons of DEN 787 FO. If it fails they are all set to make more money on the line. Whether that is enough to keep Mgmt at the table for a rapid TA2 is the question.