Originally Posted by
Dave Fitzgerald
Guys...guys.
We have a TA to vote on. Whether it is more or less than Delta is really rather moot. The Delta Snap up, may never happen. If they are in full contract negotiations, there is a good chance they won't reach an agreement before the end of the extension. Therefore, no impact.
Anyway, is this a good TA for us, not SW, not Delta. Does it help them? Maybe, I don't care.
Is the pay worth a 2 year extension? That is the question. For me, it did not meet the direction for the Neg. committee and direction of the MEC to the master chairman. It is not worth the extension for me.
Dave
By your own admission a full section 6 starting from scratch will probably take DAL pilots beyond 2018 into 2019. That's 3 years. So if that's your opinion of how long a full section 6 negotiation will take in this industry (I agree with you, btw), we would need a 25% initial pay raise JUST TO BREAK EVEN on money obtained for our pilot group over this TA. The "no" voters say a 13% raise is too puny, so let's say they want a 20% raise to feel acceptable. That's 20% ON TOP OF the 25% you have to gain in order to reach a level playing field.
If you think section 6 negotiations are going to be an average of 3 years, then it makes no financial sense to vote "no". If you think section 6 negotiations are going to be quick, then they should be for DAL as well and we will gain via the snap up. But to suggest DAL will have a long torturous section 6 and we will have a quick easy section 6 is ridiculous. We are, after all negotiating in the exact same environment at essentially the exact same time. If anything they should be EASIER for DAL as they are soundly kicking our financial arses. So this TA provides a "win" for us either way. If negotiations are long, we win through the time/value of money. If they are short, we win with the DAL Snap Up. Go full section 6 and the only way you MIGHT win is if they are short.