80ktsClamp

I've given this thing a lot of thought, looked at the bullet points from ALPA, and most importantly delved into the specific language... While there are some improvements, I just don't see how I can vote yes for this thing in it's current state. Here's why:

1. The ratios and such are neat, and with the 717 carrot it seems to spell growth, but the numbers just don't guarantee growth. On top of that, everyone official is dodging the issue of the possibility of the AirTran 717 pilots coming over with the airplanes. It could give some growth to us, but with the mainline airplanes that are going to be parked (replaced...) over the coming years, it will not be much. I'm overall for the idea, but the fact is we are giving DCI 70 long term viable airplanes in exchange for parking around 190 short term viable planes. So, while marginalizing the size of DCI we are increasing their scope of viability and longevity. The language needs to be tightened up on the exceptions particularly for me to vote yes on this.

2. The permanent Republic carve out. Need I say more? The only way I can be pleased with that is with a sunset agreement on their contract. This is a huge gaping hole.

3. Delta Private Jets carve out- we won the grievance on that, they got a cease and desist... and now we just give it to them? No.

4. I don't mind getting rid of profit sharing, but the pay increases are down right insulting and we had to give up some profit sharing for those insulting pay increases? They slapped us in the face with the scope stuff and loss of profit sharing, and didn't even bother telling us we're pretty by adding more pay?

5. RSV rotation guarantee and Reserve ALV+15 rule. The rotation guarantee is still not fixed for reserves, and going over ALV for a reserve is no longer voluntary in this TA. That alone is known to cost 300 jobs. This is supposedly offset by the early outs... which is next:

6. Early outs- as alluded to by Steve Dixon's letter today, they have no intentions of replacing the pilots that go off property with the early outs. What does this mean? They have no intentions of growing Delta mainline in this TA.

As indicated by the reps' comments, this TA came back well under the guidance that the pilot contract surveys gave. If the company wants this deal as bad as they seem to, they need to shore up some key points, and they can be fixed very quickly. Don't let the dangle of shiny used airplanes fool you into thinking this is growth for mainline- it is not, and they have been very implicit in making sure to not use the "g" word as far as those aircraft being delivered.

There are some definite positives, but there are just too many large un-tasty chunks to have to swallow in this on the first go.

Signing this thing in its current state is akin to walking into a car dealership knowing your maximum price and then taking the first deal that same day which was well above what you wanted to pay.