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.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

I agree with that, but most are looking at pay. On a unoffical survey on the ALPA forum, about 270 pilots have taken it, and the top two concerns are pay and scope that need to be fixed followed by scheduling and reserve rules.

Originally Posted by orvil

The NNP stated that the Monitoring Program had been eliminated. Not true, it has been replaced by a verification program.

The CPO can still call you before the 100 hours.

The CPO can still demand to know the nature of your illness. Forget any privacy. There is no privacy in the CPO. It's none of their business.

Don't you just love how DALPA gave away our right to privacy through contract?

There are certain DALPA adminstrators who have a hard on for sick leave abuse. The way they talk about it, you would think they work in the CPO. DALPA needs to quit giving away our right to privacy.

The new verification policy is entirely at the discretion of the CPO. There is nothing hard and fast about it's administration. These are just the sorts of loopholes that can be and have been abused by the Company.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

Email it to me when you are done. I want you to do one for the positives too. Cite actual language in the contract too. Sorry Mrs FTB he's going to BR messing with th computer all weekend

Originally Posted by DAL73n

The FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) is not a reason to vote Yes and yet this is exactly the reasons that DALPA is putting forth as reasons to vote yes. We did not achieve our goals in this contract but we came "sort of" close according to the NNPs and the guidance we are getting from our reps. This is nowhere near close enough (I had personal minimums which were adjustable if certain areas had great enough gains that I was willing to lower based on other areas falling short). In every area of the contract this TA falls short and no amount of "explanation" (without getting political, it reminds me of post Obamacare - once you understand it you'll like it) is going to change how poorly this TA meets my needs.

Originally Posted by DAL73n

I believe most of us like the concept of what they've done with scope just not the wording - not tight enough - we've been bitten too many times by loose language.

Originally Posted by vprMatrix

After looking at what is being said by Delta and ALPA I have come to the conclusion that the “opportunity” that exists right now and is fleeting is the company's desire to get more >50 seat jets due to being at the current contractual 255 line in the sand.

Here is why. Delta has stated many times they want to park 50 seats and have even started doing so but have slowed down recently, many of these aircraft are coming up on heavy maintenance necessitating the need to start parking them again but there is an opportunity to use them as “leverage” to get ALPA to raise the >50 seat jet HARD cap that we are already at, hence Delta opened negotiations early and set a record pace to a TA for seemingly no reason.

Delta could possibly purchase 717s and 737-900s while delaying parking aircraft due for replacement in order to use current PWA language to convert CRJ-700s to CRJ-900s however the economics of over-fleeting mainline and replacing CRJ-700s with aircraft only slightly more efficient make this an irresponsible move on Delta’s part.

Delta could also just park the 50 seat RJs and be done with them but they would miss out this opportunity to convince the pilots that we are helping them solve this emergency by granting contractual scope relief on the 76 seaters so they can get out of other “contractual obligations.” Magically, there is a solution to the problem, it seems that we can give DCI carriers 1 76 seat RJ and they will give back 2 50 seat RJs.

Several posters have disagreed with my statement above that Delta could just park the 50 seaters however I firmly believe that they can do just that with several options currently available if the pilots are resolute enough to vote down this scope giveaway. To better understand first ask yourself why any of the DCI carriers would be willing to give up two revenue making aircraft in exchange for one.

The Air Service Agreements (ASAs) that Delta has put in place starting with the sale of ASA to Sky West and with several other carriers since all stipulate penalties to the DCI carriers if their cost fall outside of almost impossible to maintain requirements. This was a brilliant move on Delta’s part since the language gives Delta some major flexibility in compensation as well as aircraft placement if the DCI carriers fall outside the provisions of their respective ASA. As a matter of fact regional airlines profits have taken a steep nose dive since about 2007 when these types of agreements started going into place. Several regional airlines have suffered their first losses ever and several have gone into bankruptcy including most recently Pinnacle.

The above then answers the question why would a DCI carrier be willing to give up two 50 seat RJs for one 76 RJ. It is not because you can make more money flying 1 airplane vs 2 it is because every time Delta does a swap out with a DCI carrier the new aircraft come in under a new ASA rate and provide for the DCI carrier to swap out 2 aircraft barely breaking even or even losing money (i.e. PCL) with 1 that Delta has agreed to pay a higher profit margin for.

If my statement above is correct then Delta already holds the leverage it needs to dump 50 seaters. By locking the DCI carriers into “self limiting” contracts they have created a scenario where they could offer a ratio of 3-1, 4-1, or even 0-1 to park 50 seaters in exchange for renegotiation and upping the ASA rates allowing the DCI carriers to make higher profit margins similar to what they were making from ‘98 to about ‘08.

If Delta truly needs some >50 seat RJs to sweeten the deal for the DCI carriers there are 28 at Comair and 16 that are being pulled from PCL. At a 3-1 ratio that is 132 50 seaters parked and at 4-1 that is 176.

There is just no reason to believe that Delta cannot get out of the 50 seat contracts with a little renegotiation, however management must start doing something quickly otherwise the heavy MTC check are going to start kicking in which would require another 10 year investment into a large number of 50 seat aircraft. The expedited timeline and opportunity that exist right now is to get ALPA to up the 255 aircraft limit before they have to play their cards and start parking the 50 seaters IMO.

vpr