Originally Posted by
newKnow
I think this is part of what is frustrating, This doesn't take a whole lot of imagination:
* Delta management want's more cheap flying 70 seaters.
* We want to fly 70 seaters.
* Somehow there is also a provision in the TA that provides for 35% of new hires to come from DCI carriers.
Why not let the company have the 70 seaters operated under whatever DCI carriers workrules and pay they want for 3 years, then have those pilots and planes come under the Delta banner/certificate for bidding by all Delta pilots afterwards?
Then you would probably have a slam dunk passage for the TA -- even with all the other sore spots.
That 25% IMO is feel good language. Period. We hire more than 35% of the new hires from this demographic. Its there because I do not see any more flow agreements happening. Just my 0.02. Further, there are a heck of a lot bigger issues in the TA than this stupid clause. Lets focus on those.
I also agree if the cumulative July 1 and Jan 1 pay was above LUV 73N rate, there would be none of this, even with the work rule and scope changes. I disagree that if we brought all of this flying back in house and kept the pay where its at in the TA, that there would not be a loud group irked because we they bought small jets with their raises.
The fact is that everyone shouted; "PAY PAY PAY" and they have stated scope was a distant second. Well we got Section 1 tied up throughout the spectrum and it cost 70 more large RJ's with the parking of 130 50 seaters(In this regard we need to realize RA has stated they have wanted em going, but the number were not decreasing. That whole actions louder than words thing) This will shrink DCI by 35-50% of their block hrs, and probably marginally on ASM's. Frankly, its a lot of RJ's and would have preferred none, but expected less from the rumors.
Its my determination that the company did a stellar job in negotiations and probably overreached. I have not seen so many pilots voting no across the spectrum in a really long time. From the DPA guy to the ALPA supporters, many are voting no, and have made up their mind on the product; weighed the risk reward of a possible three year wait, though unlikely and will take that risk over marginal reward.
There are some really good parts of this deal, and some stinkers that will increase productivity significantly; and it is my belief the full effects of these will not be known until we start getting short in the training pipeline in a year or two. In the end what I am reading is that this is a issue with the quality of the product. Its an issue that many are not willing to accept the product or will accept the product as is, because of fear of turning it down and not seeing anything for some time. (reality is this is unknown and a three year negotiation is unlikely with all of the work that has been done-my opinion) No one is in love with this product as a whole.
Educate yourself and then ask questions of people that are voting yes and no that you think have a really good grasp on the ramifications of the language one way or another. Plenty of time to have thoughtful debate before you vote.