Originally Posted by Sink r8

Agreed.

...

You know, I'm going to throw a rock into our collective puddles here, but I want to know: why the hell does it matter what individuals want?

We always start out by making a list of demands (step in one on the path to disappointment), invariably put payrates up top, retirement second Scope, well, Scope egts sort of a glancing pass. Section 23 goes MIA.

Then we charge up the hill, get a little of the headline payrate number we asked for, and wonder what the happened.

...

What if we did this:

1) Establish an appropriate amount of flying that needs to be performed by the Delta pilots. FIGHT FOR THAT.

2) Establish an appropriate amount of total gains for the Delta pilots *. FIGHT FOR THAT OVERALL NUMBER / %.

3) Determine the appropriate fixes needed in our contract to make it acceptable to work under. This includes scheduling sections.

4) Determine the sort of medical plan a pilot actually requires to remain healthy for the long-term, and to stop subsidizing our own employment.

5) Determine other areas where we are subsidizing our employment, such as insufficient per-diem, uniforms, etc.

6) Determine what's left over. Apply that to payrate increases.


There really are only two things that truly matter: how much of the flying belongs to us, and how much of the revenue belongs to us. After we obtain this, we should fix our contract. After we do that, we should stop the bleeding of money via health insurance and other nickel-and-dime issues. At that point, our net would be higher already.

Only then should we arrive at payrate increases. These should be completely decoupled from an initial wish-list, or other airlines. The end result might be more than PD requires, or less. My point is that we should only fight for two things, and solve the details later. By invariably focusing on payrate headline numbers, we constantly fail to monitor concessionary trades, and we especially fail to worry about the total value of the deal. IOW, I think we might tend to be so short-sighted, that we leave money on the table.

I wonder if we should have a two-part contract negotiation, where we go to bat for a total number, and a proper amount of flying, then we poll the membership on how to apply these gains. Regardless of whether the nature of the gains should be baked into a TA, or not, I'm pretty convinced we're making a mistake by putting payrates at the top of the list. The total value of a contract is not determined by payrates alone. It's:

Advancement (meaning Scope gains + other contractual gains) + (credit * payrates) + any preferential tax treatment such as increasing DC contributions - Costs of employment

I'm tired of placing priorities negotiating backwards, and asking the wrong questions. It's not about how much you want for the boat, or the house, but about getting as much as we can, and leaving nothing on the table.