DLax85

Then beyond retirement, what were the reasons anyone would vote YES for TA1.0?

(Genuinely asked for the purpose of understanding and of moving ALL of us forward).

VR,
DLax

Westerner

Many of the captains I flew with generalized themselves as "one issue voters". They were also confident the TA would pass because of all the other "one issue voters" in their peer group. Maybe the group I flew with was aberration but doubtful based on the block specific voting results.

I agree with the sentiment on here of opening only pay, retirement, and scope for TA2. The easiest way to eliminate the concessions is to keep the other sections closed.

BlueMoon

I voted no, but I did hesitate for minute.

A big issue is the pay increase that they feel we may not make up for if it was voted down.

If we elect to open up the whole contract and start from ground zero, i see that worry being valid. I don’t see a coherent plan by the loud voices so far.

fix scope, fix pay, fix retro.

Nightflyer

Uh, you forgot about fixing retirement. I voted no, but retirement has to be fixed this time around.

FrankTheTank

Sorry but some of our biggest independent contractors are senior to very senior! And don’t get me started on all the flexes pulling “doubles”. Or the flex/LCA Capts as my FO getting their “right seat currency”. In the words of Bluto, “b*llsh1t””

JustInFacts

Accelerate pay from 15 to 12 years.
Easier way to validate scope penalties.
No BHSB built after secondaries.

Just to name a few. The cost of raising the DB is significant. It doesn’t matter if you think it is deserved, it still doesn’t change the cost and the value it adds to the contract. The company would give us Deltas DC plan +1% in a heart beat for freezing the DB plan. Another reason to vote yes is I don’t see this crew force rowing together to make significant improvements over TA1. This was proven within a day or so after open time was released for AUG. Minor improvements in TA2 would be a loss.

JustInFacts

We don’t get to decide what the company will open. Both sides get to open what they want to open.

JustInFacts

Yes, and some are junior to very junior. There are even some on here who make unconscionable posts. It spans the gambit.

Temocil27

thanks for spinning the facts, only the facts, and nothing but the facts. We count on you for that. Thanks for making an alt APC account for it.

DLax85

I’ll agree on the 15 to 12 acceleration. It helps a specific cohort immediately, and all under 12 years in the future. In reality though, our smallest percentage longevity pay raises have always been the years 13, 14 & 15. Regardless, getting us to an industry standard 12 yr scale is smart for future negotiations.

However, Arguing TA 1.0 has improved scope may be debated by many

No BHSB after secondaries - seems like a direct trade for gifting them R16 over R24. I’m calling that a wash.

Now look at direct concessions - new, non-industry existent Student Lines.

Requiring a pilot to fly min BLG when the company decided on their own to buy back vacations.

I’m sure others will chime in with other scheduling/QOL concessions.

The peanut butter simply wasn’t spread evenly enough across the bread, so the majority of the pilots declined on taking a bite.

In Transparency, Integrity & Unity (for Everyone),
DLax