Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1198213)

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 (Post 1198384)

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 Not true, it has been replaced by a verification program.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 (Post 1198534)

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 (Post 1198551)

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 (Post 1198552)

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 (Post 1198399)

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

Originally Posted by DAL73n (Post 1198554)

To put this into perspective I pulled a muscle in my neck/shoulder (working out of all things) and it took three weeks of physical therapy to get it back to normal - that means I missed 4 trips (most of my month) and 70 hours of pay. If I miss one 4 day (say 22 hours) the rest of the year then after that I will hit the 100 hour threshold - not good. Also, the international guys that miss one trip (80 hours) will hit the threshold next time they get sick - not good.

Originally Posted by orvil (Post 1198583)

Let's put the privacy issues asside for the moment. Are we adults or children? You either trust me to manage my sick calls or you don't. You trust me with 1,000,000,000.00 worth of liability each time I lift off. But, you don't trust me to decide whether I certify myself fit to fly?

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1198500)

You are absolutely correct. Working with us to facilitate refleeting was much faster, somewhat lower cost and had less risk for Delta management. Using that leverage we concluded a TA that greatly enhanced scope and got a 12.8% rate increase payable on the day after our current contract amendable date, with 4% of that paid 6 months early, as well as a whole bunch of other contract improvements.

The path without us is slower and has greater risk, but the maximum costs are very defined for management.