Originally Posted by slowplay

It's also quite possible that every reserve will see a substantial improvement (the highest % increase in the contract) in earnings due to the increase in reserve guarantee, that the extra 6 X days per year and changes to asterisk rotations will increase staffing requirements, and that there will be no change to greenslip availability due to the nature of how greenslips occur. With a 19.7% payrate increase over 3 years and an early retirement program for the most senior on our list it is highly unlikely that pilots will wind up with a lower W-2. Also, should things go really south and block hours fall pilots will now have protections from their job being outsourced.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here. We can debate the possibilities, but how about we put some probabilities and context with them?

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

Actually it cost more to re fleet DCI than us. It is as much as
testament to how tough Douglas builds a jet that they are even available used.

Originally Posted by 1234

Any chance we can get someone (FTB??) to put together a spreadsheet outlining open issues or loopholes that need to be addressed in the contract (i.e. pilots coming with 717's, circumstance over which the company does not have control, Republic carvout)?

I am just thinking that it would be a great tool to have one document with all the items that are not good in the agreement.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

VPR,

The part of the puzzle you are missing is the de facto ownership of the CRJ-200 fleet. Many of the airplanes are actually owned by Delta and leased to the operator. Even in the case where Delta transferred the leases, or the leases originated with the operator, Delta provided guarantee provisions in most cases.

It is my guess that part and parcel of this deal is a significant debt restructuring which will likely result in the Next Gen CRJ-900's specifically being an operating expense instead of a capital expense. By taking this obligation off balance sheet and making it a monthly payment to a service provider Delta helps get down to their 10Bn debt goal.

With less debt comes an improved ability for Delta to obtain new wide body jets. To add a guess to a guess, the 777-300 would be 15% to 30% more efficient doing most of what our 747's do, especially in Asia.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

You mean something like this (and this is just an appetizer example because if I go back and add ACL's big list... could take a while):



I guess for stuff like the 717 coming with pilots I need to add a section "OTHER".

Originally Posted by alfaromeo

I know that the C20 chairman must have missed something, but there is no way this is a cost neutral contract for Delta. There are some cost savings from not doing engine maintenance on RJ-200's and that money is ending up in our pockets. There are significant added costs, and costs that have a run rate over time rather than one time costs. I have the final costing summary open on my computer right now and it was not cost neutral for Delta, that is a fact.

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.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

*

Read the reps letters that are coming out. There was a long debate about this, but the reps as a whole felt that there was too much risk with going back. I'm not sure I follow the logic. You say we need this much more here and here to get 100% MEC approval and if they say, but we want this and this, you walk away consult the reps and go from there. You at that point still have a TA. They were in session so direction is very easy to give.*

That said, the reps debated it and chose to send it to MEC vote. The vote is 3:1 in favor of this. Talk to your reps about what they were thinking that week between the announcement of the TA and the vote. If they wanted to send it back, ask why they voted yes. There are a few of them from what I gather.


Now, we have a TA that is subject to MEMRAT. We can turn it down, and it puts pressure of the company to walk away from a comprehensive TA that solves a lot of issues for them, or they can fix about 30 or so line items and this can be a great product that all can be proud of. Its their decision, but it would have to be turned down and no one denies that there is risk with that.

Also, pay is not the only thing causing concern. Pilots have hit on othres:
1) Reserves do not get rotation guarantee nor do they get paid like a line holder

2) The ratio language appears to not guarantee growth but a dual accumulator if we shrink. (Demand to see how many mainline jets we see as growth off of this compared to the amount of RJs being sold) The ratio is based on domestic narrow body jets which have some long stage lengths.*

3) JV language covers profit/loss which includes revenue sharing but is effectively limited to those two types of monetary structures.*

4) RJET cutout on the holding company provisions. Could they fly C-Series for Skyteam and connect to AF flights?*

5) Horizion Q400 cut out. What is the beneift for this? Was it so we could include ALK in the holding company provisions without expempting the entire holding company or something else?

5) RLL recovery flying and the results of them being assigned or forced to pick up flying that would reduce reserve callouts.*

6) Reserves picking up reserve days. If called out does it hit the reserves required forumula? What percentage of GS's and WS's under 12 hrs will be gone because of this and the RLL language?*

7) Reserves being on the hook for ALV+15 if they are one minute under guarantee. What effect does this have on GS?

8) A follow on but what is the the math on what percentage the GS awards will go down now, and going forward?

9) Reroute was not touched. Remember the volcano and international guys being on the hook for 30 hrs past sign out? *Unchanged

10) Pay and how this lack of patterning will hurt UCAL and UPS in section 6 and FDX,and LUV who are going in later this year

11) Reduced profit sharing. Though monitized in pay are we really at a point where we need to shuffle the deck chairs?

12) Higher ALV thus causing many to work more, which requires less bodies in each seat

13) Avg day at 4:30 versus 6 which was what many wanted to see because it is indusrty avg among LUV, FDX, UPS etc. Why not an international breakout if 6 could not be achieved for domestic ops.

14) Low increases to per diem and international override

15)The RJ's were hard limited and now we are upping the large RJ limit to help facilitate the companies needs, but not getting decent/liner returns.*

16) overall concern for the vague language in many parts of the document

The positives I have heard/see are:
1) Better section one provisions. Many see it as a gain to see flying returned to mainline for the cost involved. They see their capt seat or hiring to get them off the bottom.*

2) JV protections are better and spell out the need for a production balance in a few situations.*

3) Holding company protections are better. Makes another republic holdings impossible to have*

4) Furlough protections are better

5) Pay is better though no where near their mins.*

6) Reserves get paid more and can pick up more pay if wanted

7) Better vacation pay

8) Better distance learning pay from 3:1 to 2:1

9) Increased per diem and international over ride

10) growth or at least the possibility of growth with the SNB

11) Downside protections wrt to RJ's*

12) Early Out that nulls the work rule efficencies at least initally.*

13) better sick bank with no more 75% pay

14) 1% increase in DC in 2014

15) Short duration deal with some protections to start talks in early 2015.
**
Its not a total list, but just one that i have complied from posts e-mail and phone calls from the last week.

DYODD. Read the langauage and determine if the language is tight enough for you, your family and the pilot group as a whole.

Originally Posted by Whidbey

You're right Whitt, I should have added the caveat "to the extent that we're allowing it to effect our decision."

I'm not supporting a no vote based on any prediction of next year's presidential election and the resultant NMB memebership.

DALPA is putting forward the argument that I should vote YES at least partly based on their prediction of future NMB behavior, behavior which is gleaned from an analysis that has intentionally introduced selection bias, just like the pay increase chart from 2008-2015. As they are putting forward this argument, it is appropriate to analyze its merits. Have ALPA's NMB analyses included the fact that the last major airline strike was approved and executed under a second term democrat?

I'm voting no because this agreement surrenders 70 large regional jets, the work rules do not appreciably improve my quality of life, and the compensation falls well below the dollar amount for which I'm willing to be gone half or more of each month.



Agreed. I would however add that it is foolish to vote yes based on fear, as you have permanently signaled your unwillingness to fight for anything more than what is given.