"After weighing the pros and cons of the TA, it is difficult to say if it actually moves the bar any higher. Instead, a compelling argument can be made that the bar will be lowered because the TA is rife with concessions in quality of life (QOL), healthcare, and possibly even job security. It might be a reasonable agreement if just the profit sharing formula was traded for higher hourly rates, but it is self-evident that far more than that was sold.
During this time of unprecedented airline profitability, it is puzzling why the DAL MEC opened early to only settle for a cost-neutral contract at best. There are valid arguments about the time value of money. However, these can be countered with equally valid arguments on the value of job security and QOL. The UAL MEC aims to get a briefing from the DAL Negotiating Committee if the TA passes membership ratification."
Yeah, actually, I do have a comment on that. This is a bloated populist statement, coming from the VC of Council 34, not the UAL MEC as the title pretends.
Job protections are actually enhanced with the TA - furlough protection is bumped to DOS, medical release is moved out of the CPO with one exception, mental health issues finally get the respect they deserve, and disability is less of a bite with the top-off. Absent the TA's passage, section 15 of the PWA includes the CPO. Yeah, the DHS is an AME, but he's not MY AME, and that alters the responsibilities of his job. Press to test, and let's go to court - they put it in writing.
One hour of TLV buys 15% credit and trip mix input from the RCC. If the company can't handle that, we nix the program.
QOL? We fixed reroute. I get home within 4 hours, or it's FUPM.
LCP OE trip drops? I never got them, never will, and the numbers show a good trade by my reckoning. 67 more reserves, out of 12,500 pilots? Since C2012 and the FAR 117 LOA, reserve has gone senior, in case anyone actually checked. It's a wash because it's industry standard anyway, and we would lose this one in mediation.
There is a time to buy profit sharing - it's schmuck insurance - and that is in the middle of a downturn like we did in LOA 46. There's a time to sell it back to the company, like we did in 1996 when we set the Delta Dot with B777 pay rates and an across-the-board six percent raise. The TA sells it back to the company at a better then 1:1 ratio.
The last downturn was in 2008. Go look at our profit sharing windfall for that year, and apply the proposed formula to it. Does anyone here doubt that the good times won't last forever? Downturns turn profit sharing into nothing, but at the same time, hard rates force the company back to the table when they desire a rebalance to Section 3. At-risk income takes no time, negotiations for LOA 46 took three years; you lock in the rates, and strap in for the ride.
PRASM, PRASM, wherefore art thou PRASM? Yeah, let's draw down Atlantic traffic, and shrink into a domestic market that's about to learn a hard lesson on capacity discipline, then wonder about variable income.
A UAL pilot should know that without the Delta Dot, there would be no UAL 2000 contract to form a pattern on. Selling profit sharing is how we got to the rates that define restoration for Delta pilots.
I think it's out of line for a rep to speak about another MEC this way. It creates unnecessary friction between unions that are expected to share objectives and resources. Cheap populism.