If Delta was worried about "hefty profits" (isn't that a good thing?) wouldn't they have gone after the 20% number? That wasn't even discussed.

A 4% pay raise (second half of this year) is worth over $40 million during the 6 months that it is paid, and this year's (2012) profit sharing is still paid at 15%. That's additional cost prior to the amendable date of our current agreement with no profit sharing savings. For 2013, the maximum reduction in profit sharing is about $42 million. The 2013 pay increase is about $260 million. Again, for any profit less than $2.5 billion that $42 million is reduced.

Last year's profit was based on just over 3% PTIX margin. Since 2001 Delta has had positive PTIX in just 3 of the 11 years averaging 3.7% margin. Compare that to C2K, where in the 5 years leading up to the agreement Delta average over 8% PTIX margin, and in 1998 we had a 12% PTIX margin. In the 5 years leading up to C2K Delta had earned over $7billion pre-tax. In the 5 years leading up to C2012 Delta has earned $1.1billion pre-tax.

I agree. I am weary of this discussion!

The process agreement for this negotiation allows either party to return to the beginning of Section 6 should the process not result in a new contract.

Can you show me an example where Delta has "sweetened it a little" in any negotiation? I see our JCBA and LGA slot swaps where the deals got worse over time. I look at Delta's management of DCI contracts and the results for those carriers and don't see much sweetening. What is your belief that it will be sweetened based upon?

 

That's exactly what we have been doing. I used to laugh when I would fly with guys who told me that in 10 years this airline would have 8000 pilots. This TA is yet another step towards needing fewer pilots imo.

Give me the TA scope with the 255 70/76 seat RJ's and we're getting close.

 

Has their management or wall street (smart money) also said that they are in the best position in the industry and are forecasting to make billions in profits going forward?

 

That is the million or in our case billion dollar question. A few facts are:

We have a comprehensive TA that is out to the pilots. It was done in two months, and there are some major efficiencies gained for the company in it.

We could both dump the agreement and start over. True, but why would we after all of the progress over a few definitions and maybe a couple hundred million in valuation? I know I wouldn't.

We also forget that if this thing gets turned down, however likely or not, the current PWA states that the company and the association will exchange openers in 270 days from the amendable date.

With this fact, if it fails, I would fully expect DALPA to go back with a list of items that need to be tweaked in the current agreement to reach a TA. It could and should be considered our opener for the traditional process if it followed exactly where we were on the survey. If the company would not take that, DALPA is smart enough to have a second document with traditional section 6 needs.

Once seeing that, and the company evaluates the cost and time value of the savings they get in this TA, I would be very surprised to see them NOT reengage. Again, that is their choice and it is unknown. Logic needs to prevail though.

C20 Chair TT stated that the reduced MEMRAT window was dual driven. First, so that the pay goes in to effect on July 1 if it passes and more importantly, Two, that there is more time to negotiate if need be.

Now you all know that I look for the anomaly in the data, and that is it. My hunch is the reps are aware there is a timeline, and maybe aware of a go date for DAL. Even if they aren't they seem to be aware that there is time before the second step of DAL's business plan to get this right and planned accordingly.

 

But show us where management sweetened the deal after the TA was voted down. Never before in history. . Which that logic, why do we even need a representative to negotiate for us? Good post, btw.

 

Completely agree. It's convenient to accept something like this from the company as fact and yet not believe anything that comes from the MEC or NC. Campbell is playing to Wall Street and the other employee groups. Clearly this contract is costing the company money and putting money in our pocket. But I think you know this. Ask yourself why they would risk our No vote on this (and possibly endanger their biz plan going forward) if what they are offering costs them NOTHING???? Do you really beieve this???

 

What is the other shoe?

Does anyone really think the 717s were the perishable event that drove the company to the table? There is something else major out there and I only hope that the DALPA guys with the signed NDAs know what it is and that is maybe influencing their decision to push this TA to us.

Any ideas?

 

Not sure that is true, but I think you are being TIC.

I recall the HAL pilots doing it and their agreement was bettered.


If we do turn this down, I would not be surprised to see the second one be worse. The MEC would then be dutifully bound to turn it down. TA 3 is probably what would we would accept, that is if what we have now is not acceptable to the rank and file.

 

Does the NMB really care? The question isn't intended to be flammatory. I honestly don't know if they care.

 

No, I have long stated that this early option would allow the company to get their debt level to a point that allowed them more options. Look what is out there in the industry. DAL wants to have options to go for any of it. I do not think any of this starts until late fall or just after Labor Day though. Just my hunch.

As I said, DAL wanted a TA by mid to late June so it could pass MEMRAT with a 60 day window by late Aug. My hunch is that still holds.

Just my .02