The 35% for ALPA DCI is not a big deal in my opinion. Whether it's written in the contract or not, we are most likely going to get that same 35% anyway. It's just eye-wash to encourage the DCI groups to unionize under ALPA, which is a good idea anyway. It's also a bone we are throwing to them because we are going to speed up the loss of hundreds of DCI jobs if this TA passes. If you're worried about there being room for your military bros, don't. There won't be enough of them getting out to make up more than 65% of the new hire classes anyway. Probably be unlikely to get even half from the military because they can't stand the paycut unless they are retiring.

Also, you should have heard the *****in' around here about getting part of our pay from profit sharing when the company was losing money. I think trading a small piece of the profit sharing for a guaranteed pay raise is a good trade.

Well, I'm not sure you get my point, because in answer to your original question, yes, if I could somehow use 717s to improve scope, I'd do it.

So let me answer my own questions (in a condescending and pontificating way ;) ):

1) The purpose of our Scope clause should be to do everything to ensure that Delta pilots fly Delta passengers

2) From a Delta pilot's perspective, there is no difference between any of those passengers....they were all outsourced....don't care if it was on a big plane or a little plane. Either way, some of their ticket money went to somebody elses' pilot.

This Scope makes it harder for Delta management to outsource a passenger. There are simply fewer seats for them to stash passenger butts on. Further, for the first time, this Scope demands that Delta pilots must do a certain percentage of the flying....and as 76 seaters are added (even though overall seats decline) the amount of contractual flying that we demand actually increases.

I agree, however if we "bought" about 2% of the payrates in this TA by reducing profit sharing then the real W2 increase is only 2/6.5/1/1. Does that really sound like we used any leverage in these expedited negotiations?

You and Leine Lodge are making a mistake in assuming that some of us have made our decisions without reading the entirety of section 1. You're mistaken. I certainly dont need road shows produced by a union who is desperate to see this passed. I rely on my own abilities to read every word of a contract.

My abilities thus far has shown me a section 1 absolutely riddled with loopholes. Our union missed the RAH loophole and many others. Whom should one trust?

Vote how you like, but people like you who insult us by saying we obviously haven't read the language or haven't attended enough road shows, do not make yourselves more persuasive. It makes you sound like yet another ALPA shill. Food for thought.

Carl

I like your thought, but it would actually be 2/8.5/3/3. We pay for it on the first raise, not every raise.

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall for this part. The only thing that really bugs me is how much money we may be leaving on the table

I get that. All things being equal, it really is better to have the same amount of pay in your check no matter what than to have to rely on profits. But to have to "fund" 12/3/3 with a −2 to −3 loss in PS during times of record profits with more projected is a really odd way to buff that 12 number, which is arguably anemic to begin with.

No, I am not happy with the pay rates either. Rumor I heard is that we could have had much more, but the company wanted 82 seaters in exchange, which would have led to three-class E-190s at DCI. Supposedly this is all we could get while keeping the limit at 76 seats. Best of two bad choices? I just don't really know. I don't like my choices.

That is the rumor the company is spreading. It has zero validity unless we agree to it though. Scratch 82 and insert 100, 120, 150, 199, whatever. It was their fantasy opener they put in there to keep us on our heels and make us start negotiating with ourselves. As many predicted, they knew they wanted another large fleet of 90 seaters (with 76 seats installed by management choice) so they "opened" with 82 just to get us to go "phew, we held strong at only 76!" The fact that they even put that out there was incredibly hostile though. That single handedly could have ended the "constructive engagement" and the significant good will dividend they have been enjoying and they are very lucky we let it roll off our backs. This time.

Everyone needs to read the sick leave part of the TA also. ALPA is leaving a lot out. It is not the home run that we think it is. There is still a monitoring program. It's just a little different.

This brings up what is probably THE key point in this entire process:

If leaving us under our "BK contract" is plan B, then what SAVINGS does this TA provide THEM to make them NOT want to keep us under our bankrupt contract?

Carl