What you are missing is the numerous conversations I had with my reps on this. They said we will need to make scope improvements to our contract and that this area of the PWA is in need of new language.

Not only that, the NC negotiated to get new language to prevent this in the future but then we carve out specifically language for carriers that are in violation of the intent, albeit not the legal language of the PWA.

Look, you probably have a different view here, but to me the PWA defines the boundaries of what we as pilots find acceptable in the course of our careers at Delta. I expect most of my encounters to be somewhere in the center of the PWA perimeter. I am not interested in exploring the edges. What we did here is move the fence out a little further in the part of the PWA that specifically prohibits an activity after some complained that they thought the company was in violation.

Same goes for the exemption for the large Business jets at Delta Private Jets.
Here the company was in clear violation of our PWA. Yet the TA codified the violation by specifically permitting 5 large private jets.

Is anything I am presenting factually in error?

Cheers
George

 

Ok are we subleasing the jets or not?

Cheers
George

 

I'm struck by our conversations of last year. Remember when acl65pilot and others were resonding to the DPA drive by saying: "Guys, we can't change horses in mid stream right now. We've waited a decade for our shot at a real Section 6 negotiations. It would be a disaster to wait this long, then screw it up on the verge of Section 6 beginning..." Remember that?

Well the future has played out and DPA did not get the votes. So we got our chance for a real Section 6 after a decade of waiting. And now we're going to vote YES to a TA that is cost neutral to the company before the real Section 6 even begins because the company is in a hurry. We waited a decade for that?

Think guys, really think.

Carl

 

Slow, did you have a different conclusion when presenting this slide?
Something like everybody is just puttering along except the LCCs?



Cheers
George

 

Does anyone remember what our per diem was in C2K?

I know it was more than $2.10.

 

Carl;
We would not be having this TA discussion now if DPA was in. We would not be looking at a TA, however good or bad for some time.

On a aside, the commuter policy is still that, a policy not a contracual improvement

 

Gwaltny chicken franks are $1 at walmart, buns are $1.18, hotdog relish is $2.18, a 12 pack of Dr Thunder is $3.65

in contrast, a hamburger in Copenhagen is $18, at the cheapest sit down place.

 

Yeah like that ever applies to you. Being fed a home cooked meal by some Danish co-ed and hand fed grapes for dessert won't produce much sympathy from the rest of us mortals scambo!

Carl

 

Well, Carl, thanks for "helping" me by making up a bunch of stuff I didn't say. Memrat is important, you have a vote, please exercise it. I only want people to vote based on data.

Buzzpat says we accepted their first offer. I simply corrected him by saying we had multiple offers. Not only did we have multiple offers but the issues narrowed down until we were fighting over small sums of money in relation to a $2.5 billion contract.

Now your opinion is that if we say no then management will open up the treasury and start pouring out money. Using your logic, we should do away with Memrat because Carl knows the answer and Carl's opinion rules.

My opinion is that if we say no, management will execute their business plan, a plan they have been moving on for months now. We will get pushed off into a corner and at some point we will negotiate again. Once they spend all that money on RJ maintenance they will keep those jets around. They also won't spend it on us.

We started prepping for this negotiation 18 months ago. We had numerous strategic planning sessions with the MEC, we put out an enormous amount of information to the pilots. We had a 100+ question survey that had 6,000+ responses. We carefully analyzed those results and worked with the MEC to refine their direction to meet the priorities of the pilots. We assembled a large negotiating team including four professional negotiators with over a hundred years combined negotiating experience. We had a trained economist, a brilliant guy, helping with costing and analysis. We went through expedited but comprehensive negotiations over a period of months, with thousands of hours of analysis and discussion in between proposals. In the end we were fighting over 1/5 % of our contract.

After going through this extensive process with professionals that are highly regarded throughout the country, my opinion is that if you vote no on the hope that there will be some rapid turnaround of a new contract with lots of extra benefits for us, you are mistaken. The scope language in this contract is a huge win for Delta pilots (in my opinion) and it was taken dearly with major heartburn from management. The chance that it will improve on the second go is quite low (in my opinion).

If your deal is the 76 seat issue then vote no, that is what memrat is for. I still don't understand what this issue is with Republic and Skyteam, I haven't yet heard one description of this that makes a lick of sense to me. Why would Delta try to make Frontier grow and prosper? They can't put any Delta passengers on Frontier or some C-Series jet whenever that paper airplane actually flies. They can't revenue share with them. But, hey if that is your issue, then vote no.

If you think a Delta 747 Captain making $85,000 a year more than a United 747 Captain is a personal affront, then vote no. Everyone can come up with a great reason to vote no.

The hard part is finding a path to vote no and then up with more scratch in your pocket. The negotiating committee worked their tails off and used an expanded team of professionals. They didn't just decide one day to quit negotiating and send out the results. This was a careful process that was carefully executed. If you vote no, then you better have a plan that gets us more money.

Hope is not a strategy. Wishing is not a strategy. Anger is not a strategy. You have a vote and you should exercise it. But if you vote no, I better end up with more money in my pocket in three years than this TA provides. Tell me how that happens and I will vote no too.

 

This is from Steve Dickson's latest email, and the first I have heard of a limit on the number of early outs (bolding is mine). Do we have the company pinned down to a minimum number on this?



"I also wanted to take a moment to discuss the proposed early out program with retiree medical benefits. This program is very similar in nature to the Retiree Medical Account (RMA) Program offered earlier in 2012 to ground employees and flight attendants. In order to be eligible, your actual or deemed age must be at least 50 and you must have actual or deemed service of at least 18 years, with the combined actual or deemed age and service equaling or exceeding 73, measured as of June 30, 2013. The company has committed to approve participation based on seniority to the maximum number possible without adversely impacting the operation. What this means is that if the TA is ratified by the pilot group, early retirements will be granted until any position would reach a critical staffing level. Once one position reaches this threshold, the retirement program will be closed for all pilots due to the seniority constraint."