baseball

2 to 5 years

Incremental gain

Probe

I would characterize a "no" vote, as a 30k dollar a year bet that we can get more in full Section 6, in a timely manner.

It could happen. Or not. It will cost us all 30k a year to find out.

JMD16

Worth finding out.

ugleeual

the other forum has a letter from the SWAPA President… they are going on 3.5 years of negotiating past the amendable date… think they will get retro pay?

gettinbumped

How can that be?????? They are negotiating in the best negotiating environment in history.

SOTeric

This. And if you believe we have long haul leverage that Southwest doesn't have, or need, then one must consider the options UAL possesses that is, The Star Alliance. They've played that card and they'll play it again, if need be.

One thing I've learned in the 16 years working for this company is take the money while you can.

Flytolive

Because the Big 3 have caught up to LUV on productivity and domestic pricing power (consolidation) while enjoying superior international yields.

Flytolive

A post from a former 'Yes' man.

This is not a good agreement.

I would ask the Yes voters to step back and reevaluate your position. I have and have come to a different conclusion than I had a few weeks ago. Sure the money is nice, who doesn't like a bit more coin to put in your pocket. But that money comes with a significant and on going cost. For example - we are underpaid for vacation - I just had two weeks in this month and didn't even bother trying to make it up - why do I take a pay cut for vacation? I got sick with a thyroid problem a few years ago - BOOM! over 300 hours SL gone in the blink of an eye. Had a heart problem a few months ago with only 99 hours in the bank - I was lucky to be out only for six weeks. I would trade DAL's SL for ours in a minute, or in 18 -24 months or so - with this agreement we are stuck with our current rules ALL of our current rules (SL rules, vacation rules, training rules, reserve rules - current reserve rules I would add that were supposed to addressed in this TA ) for an extra two years. But you say sure we can negotiate a MOU dealing with these. Yes we can but what if the company doesn't want to? Then we sit because we have locked ourselves into the current, sub standard contract for an additional two years.

Regarding the "bird in the hand" analogy. I have always been that kind of guy. So I thought let's take this but then I asked myself a question, "How many birds are in the bush?" 3, 6, 12, 20? I think there are quite a few in which case one bird in the hand looks like a pretty raw deal. This deal is one bird in the hand - we can do better, I believe that.

Those leaning toward or planning on voting Yes, I would respectively ask you to reevaluate your position. Step back, look where we have been, where we are and where we want to be. This agreement locks us into where we have been, not where we want to be. Let's have the fortitude to hunt a while longer.

oldmako

In your 16 years, how many times were there only three dominant airlines? (US based, domestic and international)

How many times have three airlines enjoyed not just profits, but record profits in the billions?

How many times has fuel been even close to this price?

How many times has the company not only approached the pilots for an agreement, but done so while insisting on a fast track and with a strict time line?

How many long haul international flights have been cancelled since the merger due to FAR 177 issues?

How many PDRs have been filed in the last two years?

How many times have pilots ratified substandard contracts while under duress due to bankruptcy or merger related SLI issues?

How many times have pilots said, "Keep your powder dry, we'll get 'em next time"

jetlink

Yes vote, gives you 113 hours extra per year, at minimum (assuming reserve pilot)
113 hours that you don't have to work for. Or, you can work extra, invest, and earn extra profit to cover extra expenses.
In 2 years that's 226 hours assuming you are on reserve, average more like 270 hours of extra pay; however, if DAL gets better rate, this can end up to 300h or more hours of pay in 24 months that you don't have to work for.
The wish list contains some nice benefits, and most of the NO voters count on getting all of them while negotiating next TA, what are the chances of getting 100% of your demands on next TA?
So what if we vote NO? Back to 0 time and start new negotiations, this will take few months.
New TA will take at least 12 to 24 months; a lot can change in that period; we can negotiate under much different economical and geopolitical circumstances, international trade agreements will be in effect, cross border airline ownership may take effect, (DAL is looking at opening DAL Europe HQ to offset profits from IRS), etc, and today's TA will look like a dream.
In 2012 UPA was strongly opposed by majority of middle and low seniority CAL pilots, and so overwhelmingly supported by UAL pilots claiming a superior work rules, especially to reserve, what have changed since?
Yes, the SLI and many, many upgrades that some did not expected in their lifetime, an improvement to QOL, especially pay, new bases to most, new equipment, better then expected fleet growth, and insourcing; shifting flying from regionals to inhouse, creating potentially more vacancies and new equipment (with better pay scale from E190s renegotiated in this TA). BTW, United does not have to do anything to introduce new fleet under existing TA, and pay you what's on existing TA, E190 pays $139.42, vs new TA $185.19, do the math.
We are now getting bolder, thinking we can get what we want, no matter what! Is it $ an ultimate goal for most?
For some an additional 60 h. of sick leave per year, or 18.2h. in extra vacation credit to cover up to 5 hours of credit, is worth the wait! People, be realistic, you'll not get extra 5 hours of sick pay in a month, you'll not get more then 1.3 hours in addition to your vacation credit. So what's the gain? Less then 80 hours of extra benefits, at best!