Having read the LOA a number of times, asked questions of the reps in the lounge, and attended a road show, I am voting no. Generally speaking, I do not feel the Union and Company have made an adequately compelling case for trading one seniority based bidding system for a bidding system that further favors the senior at the expense of the junior. They did a passable job of demonstrating what the software will do, but did not present a convincing argument about why we
should accept it. Specifically, the following items have contributed significantly to my decision:
- No language to prevent line holders from working more than four days in a row. As a matter of record, one of the union reps I talked to in the lounge commented that working five or six days in a row was actually probable for mid seniority and junior line holders. Under the current system, line holders will only work a maximum of four days in a row, excepting integration. There is no such guarantee under the new system.
- No minimum trip credit value (trip rig) language. One union rep said the Company flat out refused to budge on minimum trip credit values. In my opinion, a minimum value for a trip is sine qua non to a preferential bidding system. With such language, pilots would be assured of efficient trip construction, resulting in either more days off or a higher paycheck. Without this language, mid grade and junior pilots can expect five or six days of work in a row with minimum days off in a month, along with a paycheck near guarantee.
- The Vacation Issue. The Union reps used a profligate excess of words detailing how the vacation system could be better under PBS. Underneath the verbiage is the fact that pilots are still bidding on days off for vacation, with no language to prevent a trip on either side of a vacation. The current system guarantees a drop of conflicting trips. I prefer the iron clad language of the current system.
- The shameful treatment of Reserves. I feel that reserves got tossed some "improvements" that appear as almost an afterthought to garner their votes. Much more should have been done. There has been much rhetoric implying that we should accept this LOA now, and work out the reserve issues in negotiation. The last negotiation took over five years. The Reserves deserve better than the sentiment of "line holders get theirs now, and Reserves will get theirs in half a decade".
Again, I will admit the sentiment petty, but the hubris displayed by the Union and the Company in their contemptible smugness regarding the passage of PBS irks me. I find their "Trust me...I know what is better for you" attitude condescending.
The Union and the Company have offered views of the failure of PBS passage ranging from the dramatic to the passive. I have heard that if we don't accept PBS then Delta will drop ASA, which will soon cease to exist as a company. I have heard that PBS is absolutely essential to ensure growth. I have heard that the United flying is dependent on the passage of PBS. These arguments contained much melodrama and passion, but no facts. If true, then the Union failed to demonstrate or document these alleged imperatives.
I do not subscribe to such pessimistic views. Given that the
economy is showing signs of revival and that
Age 65 will soon trigger significant retirements bordering on massive exodus, the negotiating landscape could look much, much different in three to five years. Pilots could conceivably be in a much, much stronger bargaining position as ASA struggles to keep pilots as mainline carriers begin hiring in earnest.
In conclusion, I don't feel that the proposed LOA offers a significant improvement over the current system. Honestly, I feel that the LOA is bad for over half the pilots (the bottom half of the line holders and all of the Reserves). I also think that there must be a minimum trip credit to ensure the construction of pairings that will ensure PBS generates schedules that are effecient for the Company and enhance the quality of life for the pilots. Further, I do not feel that there is a significant peril with voting down PBS, and despite all the dinning to the contrary, the situation in three to five years might actually be more favorable for negotiation.
Finally, and at the risk into straying into the aforementioned hyperbole, I would like to address the sentiment that PBS is inevitable. I don't believe in inevitable, and accepting some fate because there appears no way to avoid it is dangerously conformist groupthink, and un-American. What if George Washington had accepted the inevitable after the loss of New York? What if the USA had accepted the inevitable of the ruin of Pearl Harbor? What if Rosa Parks accepted the inevitable? Vote your intellect; vote your conscience; vote your emotion; but don't vote because you lack courage in your convictions and go along with the group. Vote yes or no because you actually believe it is the right thing to do.
