Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1197981)

Add to that we have ZERO guarantee that the AT pilots will not come with the planes. It been silence from DALPA on that one.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1198038)

Some reps have stated that, not all. There has never been a negotiating committee ever that has obtained the MEC's direction, that is the nature of the process. It didn't happen in C2K. The value in the contract was apportioned out exactly in line with the MEC's direction. Everyone wants more value, but this is what was on the table. It was time for the MEC and the pilots to take a vote. What exactly would the additional direction be? Try harder? Get more money? Those could be left unsaid and nothing would change.

If the direction was, disengage in negotiations, then vote down the TA and you have disengaged. 14-5 said this was worth a pilot vote so there is the MEC's direction.

I am a little lost about this whole direction thing. The MEC said put money in A,B, and C and that is where it went. What's missing here?

Originally Posted by whitt767 (Post 1198041)

So Steve Dickson is going to give the 717 bid this fall to AT pilots?

From Dickson's weekly update:
"Deliveries of the 717s would start in the middle of 2013 at a rate of about 3 per month, and we would plan on a bid this fall to begin staffing the category.* The 717 will be a separate category, and the TA has established pay rates equivalent to DC-9 rates.**"

Originally Posted by DLpilot (Post 1197967)

The 50 seat RJs are not the problem. The 76 seater has a much lower CASM that can be flown on our routes. How can you not see the danger in having the regionals continually transition to larger fuel efficient equipment?? You will be thinking in a couple of years.....they maybe taking another Caribbean turn with their 76 seater but there will be less 50 seaters going to Meridian...woohoo. Open your eyes and look at what is our direct competition. We should be trimming them from the top down. We should be decreasing the 76 seaters!

Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1198038)

Some reps have stated that, not all. There has never been a negotiating committee ever that has obtained the MEC's direction, that is the nature of the process. It didn't happen in C2K. The value in the contract was apportioned out exactly in line with the MEC's direction. Everyone wants more value, but this is what was on the table. It was time for the MEC and the pilots to take a vote. What exactly would the additional direction be? Try harder? Get more money? Those could be left unsaid and nothing would change.

If the direction was, disengage in negotiations, then vote down the TA and you have disengaged. 14-5 said this was worth a pilot vote so there is the MEC's direction.

I am a little lost about this whole direction thing. The MEC said put money in A,B, and C and that is where it went. What's missing here?

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1198047)

Until we hear otherwise in an official document, WE better assume the pilots are coming with the planes.

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1198026)

OBTW, how did hiring 35% from ALPA DCI make it into this TA?

Originally Posted by CVG767A (Post 1197980)

Alfa, do you have any info on the cost of this TA? I'm trying to verify the statement by the Council 20 chairman that this TA is cost neutral (page 6 of his letter).

Originally Posted by Elvis90 (Post 1198008)

Alfa, you probably already did this, but could you provide a breakdown of cost by year beginning with this year through 2015?

Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1197984)

Even if you do assume it is cost neutral for Delta, it is not cost neutral for pilots. The total value of money in our pockets is about $1 billion over the life of the contract. Some of that money would have been spent on RJ costs. So would you rather have that money in your pocket or would you rather send it to engine maintenance? If Delta has to send it to engine maintenance they are not going to give it back to you.