Not if we sign this TA we won't. IF we turn it down... all bets are off.

 

OK so maybe better than what we have but yet not as good as Alaska pilots currently enjoy.


- Pilot must be provided first class on deadhead any time first class seats are available on any flight.

- Pilot must be provided first class on a deadhead on ANY flight over five hours. This also includes consecutive deadhead legs adding up to 5 hours (all those flights need to be first class).

They also have what you listed when they are not in first class. I am surprised, since the ALPA management types on here brag about having access to all the ALPA contracts we didn't go for the cream of the crop.

 

I've only talked to about 6 or 8 other pilots about the TA, but all are leaning towards a yes vote. I initially thought we could negotiate more in terms of compensation, but after factoring in other enhancements, I am also leaning yes. I admit to not understanding scope issues as well as I should and basically trusting that the company doesn't have a deceptive intention in the scope changes of this TA. The raise is significant to me over the 3 years. The ability to lock in the gain and negotiate again in 3 years is appealing. The enhancements to reserve are significant for me. I believe the TA is a good faith effort on the part of the company and our union leadership. It's not the major issue, but I think there is a cost associated with rejecting an offer if the parties that negotiated it (union leadership and management) believe it's fair. Unless I see compelling evidence to the contrary, I'll probably vote yes.

 

On one hand you say that the 50s can't be parked because they're in long term agreements, and on the other hand you say the 70s will be converted to 76s. Those 70s are in long term agreements, also, who is going to do the conversion?

The number you control is 255. 255 RJs with more than 50 seats in the current agreement no matter the mainline fleet size, and an increase to 325 in the TA.

 

Do you mostly talk with senior 747/777 captains? Your account is in direct opposition to my own experience and everyone I have talked with and other accounts here.


I admonish you to do more research.

Until management dangles the next carrot...."if you guys want more 777's then pony up some more scope giveaway with more 76 seaters". I can promise you that is the next deal coming down the pike if we sign off on this deal.

By "enhancements" do you mean a little more pay while the company gets more productivity flying your a$$ off and not hiring any more pilots for a lengthy period of time beyond a handful to man the 717's that will fill the spots of airplanes parked since the merger? Good luck with that.

 

I'm a new guy and finally decided to get a pen and paper and do the math. I think a lot of people have not read section 1 of the current contract(or can't put their heads around the math) and are just using emotional outcry of no more jobs lost. Reading the NNP on scope illustrated beautifully why this TA is reigning in scope. Besides, take the money and run now and before you know it we're back at the negotiating table for more!!!!

 

Tell the Continental pilots about how the CBA prevents a merger partner from bringing in additional RJs. The same happened to Delta and NWA, no RJs were parked as a result of either of your contracts.

 

Round and round we go....

The bottom line is there are more total large RJ's. That's the threat/problem which cannot be ignored regardless of semantics and shell games.

Large RJ's can do flying currently performed by Delta mainline due to their economics. But you already knew that from the hundreds of times this fact has been pointed out.

 

I don't recall the Delta pilot group rejecting a TA. If you consider pay rates and working conditions to other passenger airlines today, I believe a strong case could be made that Delta is the best airline to work for. This time may be different, but if all the previous yes votes have helped result in our current relative prosperity, why do you feel so confident that a yes vote on this TA will be so detrimental?

 

May I ask what is your current seat and seniority range?

I hope that you're not voting the way you wish to vote because how your colleagues are voting. There're good stuff in this TA, but please do your homework and know what else comes with this TA. So far, EVERYTHING that comes out from the union has urged you, implored you, encouraged you (you get the idea? to vote YES. That is a fact. You have to ask yourself, are you inclining to vote Yes Or No because of how your union has asked you to vote?

Read the TA, ask yourself some hard questions, "Does this xxx clause will hold up in front of a mediator?", "Does this xxx clause will improve my job security? immediately, in 10 years?" I understand it is not easy to understand some of the verbiage used in the TA, and that's why it's important to ask questions, either here, talk to your reps, go find a friend, and be sure to make sure you hear BOTH sides of the story.

Good luck.