More Bacon

My point is, beware unintended consequences.

Carl Spackler

Then that's all you need to know now isn't it. We were told explicitly by our MEC chairman that we would not sacrifice what the pilots demanded in their surveys for the sake of expedience. He said if that is what the company demanded, we would end this expedited process and return to the traditional Section 6. Was he lying? Was he intending to renege on that pledge all along?

Who really cares. The TA doesn't meet the surveys demands. Period. Send it back. Strictly business.

Carl

Carl Spackler

Do you not see that you are raising emotional and fear-based questions? You're allowing a pass to the agreed upon process because of fear of the future. Please think about this.

Carl

finis72

Please don't mix fearful with thoughtful. RA and DL can just step away from this and stonewall us for a long time. The NMB probably will say the company bargained in good faith and we could well be into contract 2015 by then, that is a possibility to a no vote just as getting a better deal if we vote it down is a possibility. What is all this leverage you talk about ?, the only leverage I see is a happy pilot group would probably be more productive for the company in the long run. There is risk in a no vote, there is risk in a yes vote but don't say there is no risk or revert to name calling.

acl65pilot

No Carl, its a realistic question and the level of risk is unknown. There may or may not be a down side risk, and each and every pilot needs to weigh that based on everything they read, see and think.

Also, you have a product; the TA, and it is the product each DAL pilot must weigh. The process, however subverted, or not, needs to be looked at separately. It is something that every pilot needs to do. We have a TA from a process, and even if the process is was not what you wanted, the TA is still here. Voting it down because of the process is your call, but the reality is that even if you recall every rep, and the head table the same people, and barging agent will be in place to renegotiate the deal. That is why filling out an "alternate union" card does nothing at this point in time. Recalling everyone takes time as well. The next LEC meetings where the resolution would possibly be heard start in August. Then the cards go out, and you have 30 days for a recall vote. You are looking at mid to late September. The next process for new reps starts in August with nominations. The process for a new head table starts in Oct/Nov with them taking office in Jan, reps in March.

Those that are angry need to work within the framework of the process in place and understand the timelines of all of it. Even if you had 6500 cards today, they have to be verified and counted. That takes time, and best case you get a representational vote in early Fall; well past when this thing will be voted down and possible subsequent negotiations take place.

That is not fear Carl, that is reality.

Oh and Carl, I am not a Yes nor a NO votes at this time. I have read the live contract TA six times and am still doing my modeling.

MD88Driver

I don't believe the FO differences in pay 2004 and 2015 rates (red numbers) are correct on the dollar amount.

TheManager

The company was willing to open negotiations early and in an expedited manner. They proclaimed, and it was passed on to us by our chairman that hey wanted an agreesment by the middle of May.

There was much speculation as to why. Now we know why and with the presentation of this TA, they have laid there cards on the table.

They are swimming in 50 seat leases that are costing them money in interest, maintenance, and expenses. The economics of them suck. Boyd has been bringing this to attention now for a couple of years.

Our current contract does not allow relief and now they have crafted a TA that has us solving their problem and adding 76 seat a/c for meager monetary gains that are funded by a reduction in our profit sharing.

The company had the gall apparently to order these extra 76 seat aircraft late LAST year, well before we began negotiating. On top of that, they are trying to dangle the 88 717's as a carrot and proclaim the order is contingent on us ratifying the TA.

Delta has a problem, they need a new contract from us to fix it. That is our leverage and the situation now is diametrically different than in any previous section 6. Rejecting this TA does not automatically mean years waiting for the NMB and a new contract. Given the companies motivation and needs as compared to the value of the current TA to the pilot group, it is obvious that the company loses more due to protracted negotiations than the pilot group will.

Jack Bauer

I'm ok letting this POS fall off the table even if it does take us to a later date. Too much downside, not enough upside.

flh57

Looking at the new work rules, what can we expect a 3,4 or 5 day trip to be worth. I believe most pilots would like to get 6 hours a day to fill up quickly, but I believe that is not possible to do with trip rig only. Pay is important, but the trips determine your QOL. Looks like 3 day trips can be worth as little as 13:30. Not good.

Josephus

This answers my question on another thread... thanks. (you pro APC guys are amazing... you are like Karnac!)

So it is about 15% less and no DB?

From what I understand (could be way off) C2K was a contract Delta knew they could not keep up long term, but signed it anyway to keep from striking.

It doesn't seem so bad (easy for me to say) except for the scope in this TA.