Thanks. The rest of us were half right. And half wrong. I thought there was something different between vol and invol.

I'm betting you misread what the LEC letter said?

I volunteered for a boatload of SC/FSB in September, ten or so. I did it as a defensive tactic to manage my silo - for example volunteering for a late SC on my 1st reserve day so I could commute in to base in the evening. I got used for two out and back trips (one from SC and the other APU I think). I got paid 81 hours for the month. Maybe payroll screwed up (gasp! is it possible?), but I sure like being on reserve in the slow months.

Shhh!!!! Don't let them know!

My understanding is CCS currently has no way to differentiate an assigned or pick-up SC.

Lets see, it takes a month to go from an AIP to an approved TA (covers Thanksgiving and Christmas for all the ALPA hangers-on).

LESS THAN 1 DAY after all this "process", ALPA publishes educational videos (sell job?)??? Really? They can take a month getting a TA done and approved, but they can formulate, design, build, and publish, a professional looking sell job, in under 24 hours?

I am voting yes on the TA, but once again, while ALPA appears to be talking to my face, I get the feeling a reach around is occurring, and I am starting to get that "penetrating" feeling.

I think we all know by now that your vote is a YES vote. Do you care to offer an explanation as to why ALPA is planning or doing a "reach around"? Should be a simple answer for fodder like yourself.

I will be voting no. While I feel the 2012 agreement was necessary for many reasons (right or wrong), I feel like we are ****ing away opportunity in exchange for a handful of coins. In my 20+ years at Ual, the company never came to us. Except in bankruptcy when they raped our contract. To sell it for pennies is a mistake. Sl, vacation, reserve, trip trading (none), all could be fixed almost instantly if the company wanted to. We trail the industry in all of those. Why should we accept less than industry leading? This is not even remotely industry leading. What legacy are we leaving if we can't say no to such a weak extension to an already sub par contract?

Scott

Hi Staller.

We have already gone around on this, so we will be canceling out each others votes. I respect your opinion, but I disagree.

Like I said before, my "yes" vote isn't a yes vote for the way things are. They are a "no" vote for waiting for 3-5 years for a new contract. This is a freebee, ahead of time, and we give back nothing.

Think of it this way: If DAL goes above our rates, our rates are already good. Maybe the membership would rather trade a small incremental gain in pay rates, for better QOL stuff.

But this one is free. I never vote no for free stuff.