I agree that the name calling is inappropriate. The critques of the contract are legitimate, and I expected them, and we all need to hear them. This is the time, now, for discussion about the contract, even with outside parties, because we need to make a decision that all of us can live with for several years.
We will all need to see the contract in its final form before we can make a lot of assessments about its content. However, while criticizing it, it is important to consider our contract both against our competitors as well as against our current work rules.
It is true that there are competitors of ours which retain better clauses in some of these areas than our new TA (apparently) does. The 75% deadhead pay is one such rule. Many of you get 100%, but according to my data, Mesa, Eagle, and PSA, as well as our old contract, paid 50%. We retain no Junior Manning (a very important point to me, at the very least), which many carriers have (CoEx, too, I think?). The 98.5% completion factor thing, again, isn't perfect, but it is a significant improvement over the 0% cx and mx pay that we've earned in the past, and according to our EC, we would have seen this in effect 75% of the past year. Per diem rates are not ComAir's, but they lead Air Whikey's, CoEx, Piedmont, Mesa, Allegheny, PSA, ties Eagle, and is within a nickel of ASA and ACA. I understand quite clearly that United does better on per diem than we do, but I don't personally believe that we can reasonably compare ourselves to United in this instance when our peers uniformly accept this as well.
2nd year pay is up, percentage wise, 22.2%. The pay rates are up considerably, and we have made agreements on wages for larger aircraft which substantially beat the rest of the industry. If we do indeed, as rumored, acquire 70 seat aircraft, we will be in better shape than, say, SkyWest who has accepted a pay freeze on aircraft of this size for the near future. The gap in our pay rates for the smaller aircraft has closed somewhat. We have, apparently, a stock purchase program, improved 401k contributions, Optical Coverage, and improved the language that defines how bases can be opened or closed. In fact, one of the principal things that our EC was working toward was an overall improvement in the wording of the contract, so that there would be less "wiggle room" for the company to take advantage of. They seem confident they have achieved this throughout the training, compensation, displacement, and all other parts of the contract. We've also acquired a commuter clause.
Of course, one of the biggies was to shut down, or at least neuter, the startup and operation of everybody's favorite new alter-ego carrier, Republic, and keep the growth at CHQ. We have achieved this with a "one list" clause in our TA, which would keep all RAH flying at Chautauqua (note that Shuttle America is held by Wexford directly, and not by RAH, so this does not directly affect their flying. Like most of us here at CHQ, we hope nothing but the best for our friends at SA and thank all of them for their support). The fact that we did it with a progressive agreement is a testament to the dedication of our EC and our pilot group's unity as a whole.
That said, even on the surface, it is not going to be a perfect agreement. We all will weigh, over the next week or two, whether we believe that this contract addresses all of our concerns that were brought up by the failure of the last TA, and I, like most of our pilot group, support the outcome either way. If, as a whole, it is determined that the contract does not meet our expectations, no matter my feelings about it I will walk the picket line, if it comes to it, until the last day. However, I think many of us are optimistic that we have made generous strides and that we might be able to finally move forward from the bitterness of the negotiation process.
My mention of other carriers' work rules is not meant as a flame or a criticism of those carriers, their pilots, or their ECs. Please don't misinterpret me. I want to frame to conditions of our TA in the proper context, and more than anything I wanted to point out that comparing any of the regional airlines' contracts to United's will make them pale in comparison. Furthermore, my statements are only based on the information available to me, so if it is inaccurate, I hope that you will [politely] correct me so that we may all have the most useful information to deliberate on our decision. We need to get every viewpoint in the open about this agreement before agreeing to it or denying it, so let's all be civil, even when it's tempting not to be, when someone disagrees with us. (Well, it was worth a shot...

)