Originally Posted by
hitimefurl
What is the cost per year of your proposed fixes (over 30 items you said)?
What vote would they yield?
Not sure what you are asking, but I assume with the items fixed. That said, probably in the lower 70's.
If the vote count was 49% in favor, are you just trying to get to 51%?
When now?
If the company has a "Plan B", how close does that plan come in value to "Plan A"?[/quote]
Plan B for the company is more expensive than plan A and not by a little bit.
Do your fixes make Plan A's requisite contractual relief so costly that it virtually eliminates the financial superiority of Plan A, thereby driving the company to Plan B, and negating the leverage the pilot group has?
Nope. As I said before, any new plan in the short term still would have the scope modifications in it. Its the sole reason for DAL's motivation to negotiate early. They need this restructured to go forward with other plans. We as pilots need to understand that or prepare for a long drawn out negotiations. I stated that a true road map wrt to SJS limits, non compliance wording, ratio rolling averages, and check valves would work with that, more general language with JV's, Sole Domestic alliance language outside of the JV language, and specifically in the RJET coutout, would be simple fixes that shored up the flanks and did not effect the business plan.
On pay, it must go up from where is at, and needs to not be "restoration" but something that is truly patterning.
Work rules changes concern me, but if they are a must, make the RSV max ALV+7.5 to come in line with max a regular line holder could be on the hook for in the LCW.
Make the commuting policy contractual.
Change Reroute
Add 1% to DC in the first bump, amendable date, and DOS+1.
Clean up the concerns in sick time
A few other items but of less importance to this group
Isn't that called "overplaying your hand"?
For who? Its cleaning up the items that LOA's have not been able to do. That is what Section 6 is for.
[Looks like you went back and changed your post while I was replying]
I'll say this, if your belief that a fix is easy is not reason for voting against the deal, what real world plan do you have? That's in a real world where there's two parties to a negotiation and we're not just typing on our keyboards.
What is the cost per year of your proposed fixes?[/quote[
I stated a top end.
What vote would they yield?
I assume 100% yes on the MEC and easily pass the pilot group allowing the pilot group to row in concert with the company when it comes to mergers, acquisitions, and regulatory issues coming our way. Constructive engagement worked both ways.
If the vote count was 49% in favor, are you just trying to get to 51%?
Repeat? My point is to get the pilot group to see value in their sacrifices, and this TA does not do that. If the vote is over 65% in favor I am wrong, and I am ok with that. If its less, than many pilots, even yes voters that are just taking the pay and running, do not see this as the added value expected after a decade or contraction et al.
If the company has a "Plan B", how close does that plan come in value to "Plan A"?
Do your fixes make Plan A's requisite contractual relief so costly that it virtually eliminates the financial superiority of Plan B?
Nope, plan A would still be cheaper. I am not that dumb. Plan A is much more preferred by the company and it allows them to have many more options.
If this is turned down, and I was a MEC negotiator or Rep, I would have two proposals ready. One that is contractually required; the traditional opener that is required to be exchanged 270 days prior to the amendable date. It would be in line with the contract survey, and not time valued at all. It would be costly. The second one would be the fixes, and significantly cheaper than the first, and quicker. It would imply the understanding of what the company needs now, but also state what needs to be fixed for unyielding support from the pilots going forward. It is not overplaying your hand in the least. It is getting the pilots what they wanted but rationalizing it within the direction of the MEC.