You don't get the DC because you have a fully funded DB plan. (Plus some sort of other lump sum payout that I am unsure of.. I heard that from a fNWA 320 captain. I will find out more about THAT and remind you of just how pitiful your case really is) How dare you come on here and act like you have been harmed in this instance. But guess what, you will get the DC 2015. I'll betcha that if you think about that for a little while you will NEVER leave...

Talk about insulting.

not at all what i'm saying. the changed work rules will result in the need for 300 less pilots (at least people have been throwing that number around). Yes, we would get 717's, but after retiring the last of the -9's and how many more other aircraft we may find ourselves sliding backwards. of course maybe there would be some senior guys bidding reserve.

You're right. We need to be more careful with these comparisons. This guy makes 289K for 12 days of work:

Carl

The current block hour ratio is 1.19-1.

So what the alleged math "proves" is that DCI will have to shrink airframes by 25%, seats by 16%, and has to have at least a reduction from the current 1.19-1 to 1.56-1 ratio of block hours, and the "worst case" scenario a guy comes up with is that DCI shrinks even more than that?

And that's a "yikes"? Here I thought this board was all about scope...you know, the stuff that ensures Delta pilots do more Delta flying...

Thanks for this FTB. It's good for us all to remember the sacrifices that have been made. Many of us here could have been a part of this picture. I am truly grateful to all who have served, but especially to those who are now honored and gone. Let's not forget what they lost.

I have been reading much of the debate/discussion here since the TA was made public. I have many years here at Delta but this is the longest period of time that has passed without a section 6, ever. That always leads to frustration and, as we see here, anger. Many folks here have made some very good points about both the good and bad about this TA. Some have expectations that are unrealistic, IMO.

A lot of angst has been exhibited about SWA being paid more than us over the last few years. We all know that has not always been the case. They have never tried, via negotiation, to best the industry in pay. They got to where they are by slow, steady increases. And yes, many of the items in their duty rigs are more advantageous than ours. I expect them to quickly fall behind the rest of the industry as other major players get "healthier".

We are where we are because of a BK that we were not responsible for, in fact, we as a pilot group sacrificed a lot in an effort to skip that situation. As much as I would like to have it ALL back, that will not happen at one time. I think that tsquare made a great point in noting that this TA is for only 3 years, when we expect the financials to be even better for our employer.

Remember that both sides of any negotiation will usually be unhappy about some of the outcome. As someone else has already said, the company will be very happy if it only passes by 51%. They will know that they got all they could. Likewise, DALPA (the pilot group, not the negotiators/MEC) will know that we got all we could, AT THIS POINT. Since this is only a 3 year agreement, anyone who expects to retire before it ends will probably vote for the TA. Otherwise, they probably will not see any benefit from this round of negotiations. I am in that group.

So, as you evaluate whether you will vote yes or no, consider how the TA will affect every sub-group in our entire pilot group. The FNWA folks at the top of the list have some reasons to take the early retirement program whereas the FDAL folks have less reason. Only a very few FDAL folks have been here as long as I have, so we will not affect the outcome in any significant numbers, but there are still significant numbers of pilots that will be forced to retire in the next 5 years and more after that. The company will always want to find ways to mitigate the effects of those retirements. This time they are trying to control the timing of the retirements. That will not significantly affect the other pilots either good or bad. I don't think we "paid" for this in the negotiation other than swapping early out with medical benefits for company control of timing.

As several have previously stated, we will all be better informed after we talk to our reps and attend a "road show". Whether you like what they tell you or not, they really know more about what we are signing on for than we know. It's obvious that all our reps did not think this TA should go to the pilot group. That is very different from past DAL TA's. I don't think I need to tell the folks on this board to be sure to VOTE. Just be willing to live with the outcome. :D

One big difference between what we are talking about with the current proposal and IA....management would likely be the ones pushing for the larger airplane outsourcing, exploiting the loopholes this time. With IA, they were going rogue and doing their own thing without permission.

Thanks. That fills in the missing hole on my chart. It is much better than I thought...

Recalculation in progress.

I've never once stated I've been harmed. I'm simply saying I was not a good example for the questioner to use since the premise of his question was my pay and my 40,000+ per year dc. I'm not getting that dc, so I simply wanted the questioner to know that so he could use another pilot as an example for his thesis.

Why do I feel like you're on a ledge getting ready to jump? :confused:

Carl

Make that 2014. 1234 had it right...at the TA payrates he'll get 15% of $260-270/hr for 2 years plus additional residual between now and then. That's over $80K on top of his pre-bankruptcy pension even if he works below average pay hours.

He's right...he is a bad example.

Carl,

I don't remember if it got to the point of a grievence but I do know that our code was removed from IA because of our scope clause....

As to your second paragraphs questions, I would think/hope that they would. I know hope is not a strategy but I do think the hue and cry from the membership if they did NOT file a grievence would be monumental.:cool:

Denny