FIIGMO

Elvis,

My concerns were and are scope. Pay? of course like the rest of us I want more money.

Scope:

Republic carve out. That was listed in the the first TA/Contract change document. It was worrisome to me because of the certificate issue and oversight. Also, for the fact that what if Republic wanted to join skyteam and fly say Airbuses or C series jets.

First, Republic carve out was done to honor contracts between DAL and chitaqua and shuttle america for DCI flying that is covered under the RJ scope language that has been reduced. Yes, we are indirectly creating revenue for Republic by virtue of the holding company having these DCI carriers in it. But, the DCI carriers are covered under these scope changes and there is specific language that will not allow this to happen again with respect to operating certificates. Alaska code share has been reduced. The LAX SEA market (that has killed my QOL) code with Alaska is a hold over from the NWA agreement with Alaska. Alaska promised to feed NWA and hub definitions were not part of the contract. Dont like it but it is not going to change with out courts and payoff penalties. DAL does not want to go down that road. 50% to 30%? I have no idea if DAL had any skin in that or was part of some give and take.

The DCI scope and 50 seat reduction was and is a cost benefit transaction. DCI carries and DAL can get relief on leases for 50's (DAL parks them) if Bombardier can sign them to new leases on 76 seats and DAL can rewrite contracts with DCI carriers (no more 20 year agreements, this gives DAL modern day contracts language with DCI carriers) We give up more airframes for stronger scope language a hard cap on numbers, plain block hour language, but a significant reduction in total seats and DCI pilots. Not what I wanted but is it better? yes IMO. DAL can then get a 100 seat aircraft from Boeing (absolutely no airtran pilots) for markets than can support these jets. More mainline jobs for 88 aircraft, no 737-900er etops a/c were part of any deal with Boeing so they will be delivered as well. I dont like the fact that 757's will be parked for 737 pay rate replacements.

We wanted tighter scope we got it. It was a trade off and I feel we got the better part of it. I dont buy into the 717 as a benefit to us. If DAL wants the jet they will get it. But I honestly feel there were some complex financial transactions for this overall business plan and this is what we were able to do with a seat at the table. I personally never viewed RJ scope as a plane. It was about mainline jobs and seats being flown. 76 seats or 50 seats those total number of seats were reduced and pilot jobs at regionals under DAL code reduced. If they were all back at mainline id be happy. That with tighter scope language is a positive.

Reserve:

ALV +15 is bad. I am sure it will be rare for it to happen to anyone but if it can and it will it will happen to me. I dont like it. Other side is increased pay, days off, seniority based etc. Are good, lots to improve upon though. I am sure it was a give and take as well and I dont like all the gives.

I wanted 30% for pay. Did not get that. If this TA does produce movement it will be much higher than 20% for me and improved QOL. A risk I am willing to take right now with 20% v. waiting to see if we can do better. I do believe what the LAX letter says, there is a plan B on the part of the company if this TA is voted down. We have no idea what that is. If the company wants our help with another business transaction on July 2, 2012 it will cost them and will be added to the 20% I did not have on July 1,2012.

That is my take today, voting is not set yet. I am always willing to listen and I may just change my mind, but it has to be based on fact and not a burn it down we will show em platform, who wins in that?

Fiig