Old 06-15-2015 | 12:34 PM
  #1  
orvil
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 922
Likes: 0
From: Decoupled
Default John Malone's Letter To MEC Chairman on FB

I saw this on FB and I thought it was worth reading.



John Malone

My letter to MEC chairman:
Captain Donatelli,
I hoped to be able to vote yes on this agreement. Unfortunately, I will be voting no.
... Some of my reasons are as follows:
1) The pay increases are not enough. I appreciate the time value of money, but go get more.
2) Any increase in 76 seat RJ’s is too much.
3) The changes in international scope are too lenient for management.
4) The changes to section 14 are unnecessarily insulting. Further, I do not believe our sick leave is in excess of most other airlines (LUV I believe, not American or UAL). C12 changes were management’s idea and they should be happy with them.
5) Profit Sharing. I am sure after Doug Parker told the AMR employees that DAL’s profit sharing was a bankruptcy contract issue, all DAL management probably latched on. Guess what? We are still living under most of the changes made in Letter 51: Pension-gone, D&S Plan-gutted, vacation-6th week gone and time per day still not fully restored, medical in retirement-gone, 76 seat RJ’s-still increasing, night pay-gone. Fix those items and I will consider relief on profit sharing.
6) Virtual bases? Effect on: manning, reserve coverage/obligation, W/S and G/S impact to the non-virtual base that flying is removed from, and of course no paid moves? Fact is, the company can open/close a base already with no modification needed from our working agreement. Where did this come come? I have no recollection of this on the survey.
7) I would be in favor of counting sick leave as block time flown before awarding a pilot a green slip IF: all time dropped/performed by ALPA duty, LCA duties (jump seat or office), instructor (sim or office days), and of course management time also counted. The same provisions should also apply to GSWC, IA and IAWC.
If this agreement is turned down by the pilots both ALPA and DAL ARE required by the RLA to return to the table and negotiate in good faith. The Act is clear on this issue; a rejected TA does NOT relieve either party of their obligation. Stop telling the pilots we are without options; it is false.
John Malone
767A ATL
Reply