And here are the Vice Chairmain and Secretary Treasurer's Prespective


Vice Chairman’s Perspective—Art Aaron
As the voting window opens tomorrow you will contemplate the risk-versus-reward items that are held in this TA. Some are spinning*my vote of no*as an anger issue*about the process. Some are even trying to label me as a no-voter on everything. Others have labeled me a “red book pilot,” even though I am a 1995 “blue book”*hire.
*
I was for the Delta/NWA merger and in favor of equity over profit sharing. I favor Delta to be successful and profitable. My vote was strictly on the merits of the TA, as I had verbally stated to the MEC when I cast my vote. While my vice chairman’s TA perspective touched upon a few process issues, the majority of the article dealt with my concerns for this pilot group and the SEA base. My decision to vote no on the TA is based on the following questions and concerns:
Is a potential move from Narita to Haneda addressed in this contract? Does it protect pilot jobs?
If JAL leaves from One World (AMR) and joins SkyTeam (Delta), what happens to our south (5th freedom) flying? How many top level jobs could we lose? Where do those pilots displace too? Are we not overstaffed now? What happens if the 250-300 pilots expected to retire do not do so?
Are you ok with the potential for the company to access your medical records in order to get 100% sick paid?
ALV plus 15 for reserves—How much efficiency does this gain mean to staffing? Does this lead to less green slip opportunities? Does quality of life matter?
Does 4%, 8.5%, 3% and 3% for 42 months keep up with inflation? Does this meet your survey expectations?
Do 88 717s really mean 88 aircraft worth of growth? What happens to older MD-88s, A320s, and 757s? Again, higher paying aircraft retiring and lower paying aircraft being acquired.
Are you ok with the numerical increase in more two-class 76 regional aircraft?
*
This TA is now yours. It is not the Negotiating Committee’s product, and it is no longer the MEC’s product. It is yours, and you will need to assess your level of risk. Whether you want to accept this or not is based on how you interpret the risk. It is interesting to note that those pilots in 2006 who voted no on a bankruptcy contract (when the risk to our careers was high) are now contemplating a yes vote on this TA where little risk is evident. We are in Section 6 now, and this is the product of the dual-tract process that we spoke of. Does this product meet your needs? If it does, vote yes. If it does not, vote no.*I have done my best to provide you with*the other side of the story and*will be*good with either outcome,*but would prefer an informed vote by the pilot group*based on*each*pilot’s personal analysis and risk tolerance.
*
Secretary-Treasurer’s Perspective—Ron Morrell
Halftime Report
It has now been 24 days since the MEC voted to send the TA to the pilots for their decision. I have spent 20 of those days in the Seattle crew lounge listening to and talking to the pilots of Council 54. Some of the discussions were very emotional, ranging from anger to resignation. The questions have been varied and unlimited. Overall, I want to thank the pilots of Seattle for their engagement and for keeping the dialogue open. I hope this will continue right up until the vote is counted and beyond, regardless of the results.
*
We are now halfway through the education and voting period. Many of you have already made up your minds about this TA. There are still many who have stated that they are on the fence or do not have enough information, I will continue to be available in the lounge for questions and to explain my position in regards to the direction for our future. This is a good time to review the concerns I am hearing and provide you with the information that is most important to the many pilots that I have had discussions with during the past two weeks.
*
Process: There have been many questions and statements brought up concerning how we got here. I fully stand by my earlier perspective that was communicated to you on May 29. The facts are simple—the Negotiators and MEC Administration handed this TA to the MEC on May 14, and, after a full week of meetings, the MEC voted 14 to 5 to send it to you for your vote. Your Seattle chairman decided to vote for sending this TA to the pilots, while your vice chairman and secretary-treasurer were against that direction. How and why this TA came to you in its present form can and will be debated. The questions that need to be answered need to come from those who brought you this TA and the MEC members who voted to give this TA to you for a vote. I try to end every conversation concerning the process and the hows and whys with a simple statement, “I’m not happy about the process, but we now have a choice to make, and every pilot needs to evaluate the TA that is in front of them and decide.” We must deal with the process at a later date, now we only have one choice to make; do you think this TA meets the needs you communicated to your representatives, and do you choose this TA as your new Pilot Working Agreement for the future?
*
The decision we are faced with: The following is a condensed version of many of the conversations and questions I have been dealing with during the last three weeks. I will not specifically address the content of the TA that has been sent to you through the MEC Administration’s communications and the Negotiators’ Notepads that have been distributed electronically and to your v-files. The positive aspects of the TA are being well advertised and do not need to be reiterated here.
*
Scope
Section 1 of the TA has some very important changes—a hard cap on DCI hulls after 88 B-717s show up on our property, a block hour ration to ensure the DCI carriers cannot grow while the mainline domestic flying shrinks, and some incentive language that entices management to negotiate production balances for any future JV agreements. On the other side of the equation, this TA gives scope relief in a very big way to help Delta management rid themselves of unprofitable 50-seat airframes in an expedited manner. To many, the addition of 70 large RJs is not a good tradeoff when it was management’s decision to acquire the 50-seat aircraft and to write the contracts for the operation of these airframes that they now need relief from. Did we receive enough negotiating credit to allow this relief of our present scope language? Do the block hour ratios have enough padding that we could still see other narrow body aircraft parked without hitting the ratio limit? Would this equate to little or no growth to the mainline fleet in spite of allowing the increase in 76-seat RJs?
*
The scope equation also must include the protection of our international flying, and I find the changes in this area inadequate. I have been asked where the protection for our Asia and Fifth Freedom rights flying is delineated, and I have been unable to point them to any new language that ensures this flying is not lost. I have concerns about what may be missing. The fact that DAL could be looking for an Asian partner to mitigate changes to the Narita/Haneda flying situation but have not addressed this in any way in this TA is very concerning.
*
Compensation
We have all seen the percentage pay increases and the one percent increase in DC (in 18 months), as well as small increases in per diem, international pay, and vacation days. The fact that we gave up a portion of our profit sharing plan is not lost on the pilots that expected much better pay scales. The pilot surveys did not ask if the pilots wanted to trade one type of pay (that was negotiated for in the past) for another type of pay. Most pilots do see the advantage to guaranteed pay verses pay based on company profits, but the fact that we have agreed to give up a portion of our profit sharing at a time when the company is projecting record profits for the next few years is unsatisfactory.
*
Reserve pay increase to ALV minus 2 hours (72-80 hours) is a definite help to those who are either junior in their position or choose to bid reserve. Is this a good trade for being required to be available for up to 15 hours above ALV? The productivity increases with the increased reserve availability combined with the increase in the maximum ALV to 84 hours for line holders is not small! Do these productivity increases justify the pay raises? Were these trades adequate based on the position of our company in the industry at this time? You must decide.
*
Sick/Benefits
I have seen no pilots that were not happy to see the 75 percent sick pay situation disappear, but just as many are perplexed over why the negotiators would claim that the sick leave monitoring program was eliminated when we have now agreed to a “Verification Program.” There are many good changes to the other aspects of sick leave, but many want answers to why we would agree to a required verification once anyone hits 100 hours or a 15-day sick call in a 12-month rolling period. This is a hard discussion; did we give up a nebulous occasional phone call for a required doctors’ note? I can’t answer that question for you, you must make the call.
*
There are many other benefits changes that the MEC Administration and negotiators have disbursed, and I have not seen too many questions or complaints.
Epilogue
Many of the pilots in the Seattle crew lounge have been very animated, and most have been very willing to have comprehensive discussions before and after they fly the line; I thank them all and will continue to make myself available. As for this TA, I have tried to point out that there is something good in this agreement for everyone. There are also many concerns in this agreement. My questions back to those who talk with me are the following:
*
Does this agreement meet your expectations and cover the concerns you have dictated to your representatives and the MEC? Does this agreement compensate you enough to justify the productivity increases and scope relief that it contains? Are you confident that this agreement protects your flying and your career? If you are ready to retire, does this agreement leave the right legacy for our junior pilots?
*
Your answers will dictate your vote.