Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1198250)

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.

Originally Posted by NuGuy (Post 1198298)

Guys,

Its clear that there are some glaring and critical errors that have been made with this TA.

It is time to practices some TEM... Threat and error management.

Several of the threats have already been listed...it is time to manage the errors before they lead to an unacceptable outcome.

Remember, the goal of TEM is not to assign blame, but to put the aircraft in a safe condition, reevaluate, and move ahead.

I see some of the supporter's postings, and I'm just reminded of an stubborn guy, pressing a bad, unstable approach, and he keeps saying "just wait, it will come together", when the SAFEST course of action is to go around, get the aircraft stable, and set up for another approach...one that follows the criteria more closely.

Alfa said :" I still don't understand what this issue is with Repu[PHP][/PHP]blic 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"

The last time I heard hubris like this was from the fNWA NC saying that there was no possible combination of events that would lead NWA to park then DC-9s in favor of the 76 seaters. "They need the lift" we were told.

We all know how that turned out. Are we ready to make exactly the same mistake again?

There have been a number of cases where TA's have been pulled from consideration to be reworked. It's time we thought about doing that.

Nu

Originally Posted by newKnow (Post 1198301)

Alfa,

You,. ts, and slow, keep giving us money reasons as to why we would be smart to vote yes. But, have you guys noticed that the majority of pilots have gotten over the pay. It looks to me like 95% of the negative TA post on this forum and the ALPA board are jobs & staffing arguments.

You shouldn't be surprised, but your "we had better take the money while we can" & "time value of money" arguments aren't working. Why?

We are the same pilot group today that we were 3 months ago. Three months ago, we said we would give up huge pay increases to protect scope. We said we couldn't be bought of. We said money wasn't everything.

Now, not only is there huge confusion about holes in the scope clause, enforceability, and carve outs, but there are also work rule changes that insure the company can do the same job with less pilots.

As far as I can tell, there is not one section of the TA where Delta pilots can stand up and say that is a stand alone winning issue for us with no concession to give back to the company to lessen the effects.

More than money, Delta pilots are worried about their jobs. What good does a huge pay-raise do anyway if you are bidding a category or two lower aircraft? We are not blind, but because we have good memories, we are understandably gun shy.

Keep that in mind.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1198304)

I know of one really good nugget, the DPMP premiums went down to 22% of plan cost from 31% if my memory serves me correctly. That is impressive in this day and age.

Originally Posted by Elvis90 (Post 1198307)

Any bets on the extent that the TA will not pass? I'm thinking 2-1, or ~67% NO, meaning go back to the table.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1198304)

I know of one really good nugget, the DPMP premiums went down to 22% of plan cost from 31% if my memory serves me correctly. That is impressive in this day and age.

Originally Posted by Elvis90 (Post 1198307)

Any bets on the extent that the TA will not pass? I'm thinking 2-1, or ~67% NO, meaning go back to the table.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1198193)

Yes. Status quo forever, until a new PWA is negotiatied.



No, that's why the DPA question is presently moot. This is DALPA's process now from start to finish. Afterwards, we live with the contract til renegotiatied regardless of the union.

Carl

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1198314)

That is very high up there on my list of positives for this thing.

Now if we could just send this thing back through the grinder and shore up some stuff, I'd be very happy to pass it and get on with life.