Notice how the phrase "industry leading" hasn't been used for months in any communications, and how QOL morphed into QWL.

Vote NO
 

Hard NO for me! Concessions, give me a break.

You have political factions within the mec that are just looking to point fingers so they can claim they pointed fingers. I don't believe we are in a healthy place MEC wise. I like Captain Garth but we are fractured as a group. Too many self interests. They voted on bullet points but the final language written by lawyers, interpreted by other lawyers, and argued against by "grey" language attorneys... we aren't where they said we were. Just my opinion after 3 contracts.

No here.

To me QOL = predictability in a schedule.

If I have a scheduled day off, that should remain a scheduled day off. I can see being in an out base and the company saying, “hey we gotta throw you on another line” (I’d accept that), but when you are in a base and they are rolling with nearly 50% RSVs, it’s unacceptable to me. I should absolutely be able to say no and not have to file fatigue or sick to not do it. Hell, most of the time (like 98% because the add pay is great) I’d say sure thing, but again, it should be my choice.

My other issue is that I still don’t see an approved calculus for the gline, am I missing it? That also ensures me that at x% seniority I can reasonably expect to hold a line or not. That is very important to me when I consider possibility of upgrade in the future. As such I can schedule against that. With the gline being set at pretty much wherever the schedulers want it, there is zero predictability unless I’m at like 30% seniority and that, is a long long time from now.

Again, predictability of schedule is critically important to me. I have a lot of kids and do my darndest to schedule for games, graduations, birthdays, etc. It makes it my hill to die on, so to speak.

It is a lucrative contract and I’m happy with the negotiating committees work. Unfortunately, there a couple of must haves that aren’t there for me, so again, no.

Let me know if I missed something in my reading of the TA that negates either of these statements, I’d love to vote yes.

Bump to the top

66% yes on APC???? Sheeeeeot. This mf is passing BIG. I’m gonna go ahead and put a deposit on that Model S. 😎

Stevie said it best…. Go on take the money and run! Woo hoo hoo

APC tends to overstate just a tad depending on which way the wind is blowing. The DAL poll had the TA passing there at 80%, and it passed at 78%, which was pretty much the same margin as C2015 TA2. I think it also showed DAL's C2015 TA1 failing more than it actually did.

I think the FDX TA failed with less of a margin than the poll there showed.

voting NO with the hope that your “wants” will miraculously be granted without a give back is a pipe dream. What in the current TA would you be willing to give up to make the changes that make you a hard NO?

What in the previous TA did we give up to get this one?

We will vote to see if this TA is sufficient for the majority or not. If it is not successful, more negotiations will ensue, and a new TA will be the result. When and what that will look like are unknown, but to vote yes assuming that there are no possible improvements is just as moronic as voting no and thinking they will miraculously be granted.

If you think there are no cons to this TA, you are either dumb or woefully naive. If they are acceptable to you, then vote yes. If not, vote no. But don’t let fear of the future compromise your judgment or morals.

my response was to Spartacusbob… he said the cons outweighed the pros for his situation… I’m asking him what would he be willing to give up out if the current TA to make his “wants” added to the TA to make him a yes… simple question.

But to answer your question… YES, what was negotiated is acceptable to me and I believe it’s a significant improvement. I personally don’t care what your thoughts are on pros/cons OR how you’ll vote. Unlike many I can make my own determination based on what is acceptable in this TA based purely on what has been provided to us.