The closest we will get to that in writing are 12,000 of these (although I'm sure we will have to make even that "cost neutral" to the company).

 

How do you know we all won't get 7? We've mostly all been getting at least 5 or 6 a month lately in my category anyway (unless you are senior). The extra pay is nice, but again; I think the 7th SC should be optional like the ALV+15 thing.

 

You bring up an excellent point.

Delta Air Lines is run by an incredibly smart, engaged and aggressive team; and this airline is indeed climbing just like the employee buses say. Climbing, towards a big goal.

And along the way to that goal this management team is wisely being very opportunistic in achieving their product, pricing and market reach strategies.

That opportunism is leading them to chase gems like undervalued 717s and MD-90s, to use our leverage to acquire new 739s well below their market value, to transform our international cabins to international standards and to upgrade their regional fleet with CRJ-900s/E175s.

And they obviously see an enormous opportunity in getting the pilots to sign off on a fast, painless and cost neutral contract under the guise of time value of money and additional fleet type while also lifting the limitations on the outsourcing of those large regional jets by a whopping 28% in exchange for retiring jets they do not like or want.

If they can accomplish that, then it’s easy to surmise that their next opportunity will come in the form of a strategic merger, with an airline such as Hawaiian.

The quicker they get all of that done the sooner they will be able to achieve that big goal, market dominance. Which if they can achieve before this sitting duck economy takes off again in two or so years then they will be in position to reap an incredible financial reward for this company, it’s shareholders, it’s employees and rightfully themselves.
And so I do not believe a rejection of this TA on principle means that this management team will walk away from us and any of these other opportunities. Which is also my fear. I fear that if the company’s counter to a rejected TA will be based on increasing pay, but not improving scope, it will pass. If we do not make the ratification of any counter proposal contingent on fixing Section 1 then we could easily and unwittingly, which later is always seen as deliberately, sell scope for pay.

But my hope is that we stand our ground on scope etc., reject this TA, and not accept anything less than true gains so that we too, as career employees, are in position to take full advantage of these fleeting opportunities.

[/rant]

 

Very interesting prespective;



To say I'm less than enamored with this TA should be obvious to anyone who knows me. I'll start by apologizing to the North pilots about some of the references I'll be making because my experience is as a former LEC Chairman in CVG who served during to the run-up to and during all but the last month of our C2K. Even that MEC had factions that were relatively more or less aggressive in dealing with management. While that contract resulted in what was probably the gold standard of all time in terms non-cargo compensation and work rules, many of us felt strongly that money was left on the table. Consider that within weeks of the ink drying on the signature blocks, Delta went out and spent millions on hundreds of new plasma tvs(expensive new tech at the time) to put in gatehouses around the system. Proves nothing, right?

Shortly after that TA, I was contacted be a friend still on the MEC, one of four NO voters, to help write the CON Paper, a requirement of the Policy Manual at the time. The resulting product was completed and turned over to the MEC Communications Committee. Despite content that included clearly delineated fact and supposition, and without our approval, the teeth of that paper was edited out and released to the pilot group. Shortly thereafter, the requirement for a CON Paper disappeared from MEC practice. I illustrate the example to make the following point: Your dues money is being used to communicate only a positive message about this agreement, and opinions, like those of the DTW LEC, will reach a limited number of us. It is also my opinion that those on the MEC that have implied that they voted on an agreement they disagreed with in principle to pass it on to their pilots, are symptomatic of this pilot group as a whole. Not all, but plenty of those who will vote for this TA are way too comfortable being pushed around, and, in my opinion, unaware of what value our unique skill set deserves.

I'm a relatively junior DTW 777A (though still a CVG Council 108 member) so my nest is pretty well feathered compared to those fighting the various quirks unique to more junior pilots. But we have several things in common too, like our hatred for flying being farmed out to those not on our seniority list. Coming from Cincinnati, the original nesting ground for 50 seat RJs, nobody is more aware of the folly of that POS. Did you know that a CRJ was never designed to make money? That it was only created to lose less money on thin, high revenue feeder routes to hubs than an available mainline A/C? Ever see an airline flying 50-seaters standing on its own without a code share, and profitable? No! They need the voodoo accounting practices of Fee-for-Departure invented by Delta's own Ron Allen back in the early 90's. This realization is all too apparent to today's management that really feel the pain under the current price of fuel. The cost of continuing their operation is real leverage in negotiations, and the move to profitable 76-seaters is a no-brainer for management. The cost of bags and pax left behind on poorly designed a/c is significant.

But there are scope issues that affect my end of the seniority list also. Taxi into CDG and see the dozens of 747s,777s,330s, and the occasional 380 sitting there at any given time, and you have to ask yourself why we, as one of the largest airlines in the world, have less than 30 combined 777s and 747s. (No slight to our 330 brethren, just trying to make a point.) At the beginning of this process, I was assured by our MEC Chairman that two contract comparisons would be published this time. One with our domestic competitors, and one for international. They did go talk to our amis in Europe but decided they couldn't publish those stats, due to privacy concerns agreed to. My suspicion is that our brothers and sisters overseas, with their lifetime medical and retirements, with their shorter flying months, with their annual strikes that add to their vacation time, probably cost their respective companies considerably more than we cost ours. But rather than stating proof for or against this supposition in general terms, our leaders didn't think we'd need that information. So if my supposition has any validity, why does Delta continue to farm out as much Int'l flying as they do? They won't when they have this agreement. There will be 777-300 order shortly after we agree to this agreement. Yes, this is a good thing. But is it worth accepting a TA that everyone's first reaction to is 'That'll never pass' or 'that'll be the end of ALPA on the property!?'

The combined concessions of the Delta south pilots in SLA 46 and Bankruptcy SLA 51 cut the annual cost of that pilot group from about $2.9 billion to about $1.5, if my memory serves me. (I don't know the cost of concessions to the north pilots, but I think we can assume similar percentages.) In the years since those were inked, that's over $8 billion we voted this company. Think about that the next time you taxi by Concourse F in ATL or into the Ramp at JFK. Think about that when we strap on a 737-900 in a few years, or read about the corporate debt being paid down, or the $7+billion cash on hand. I do. These are all good things for us as part of the Delta family. Is there no room for better payback for pilot groups that helped navigate bankruptcy, fought off a unnatural takeover bid, and whose merger was as seamless as any in the industry? The pay rates that came out of this TA are the result of crossing a line of becoming way to cozy with management in our joint interests mentioned above. Add in the pattern bargaining pressure National uses to make their job easier and less threatening to their bottom line and you have just put yourself in an uncomfortable position of being told the requirement to press-to-test has disappeared. Hence, another TA presented with a we'll get 'em next time sentiment. Fool me once.....

Lastly, the work rules and quality of life issues are lost in a rushed to agreement. The 3:15 vacation bank is still well short of the 3:40 to 3:45 the company first valued it at when we lost touching trips around 1990. And that was with a sixth and sometimes a seventh week of annual vacation. There are no real seniority rights on reserve when we don't recover our previous 'low-yellow.' This would have been a further balancing of the new gains and concessions in reserve scheduling. This list could go on, but we now know that surveying the pilots is only a square to fill.

In conclusion, this for me is an easy albeit expected No vote. We used to ignore SWA pay rates in the past because they didn't compare well, them not having nearly our pension plan. Now they have similar ones (or better,) and any agreement must start with equaling or exceeding their 737 rates. We are still in the dark on how our code share partners value and reward their pilots. we have not achieved nearly enough quality of life improvements. We have not improved our retirement enough. Let's go back and do this right, even if it means sacrificing the security being offered. The pressures on managements business plan are probably such that there's more on the table.

(Name deleted)
777A-DTW

 

As I understand it, the aircraft are going back to Boeing before they come to us.
Furthermore, the 717 removal from SWA should offset new 737 deliveries, and SWAPA has state that the transaction with DAL will not create pilot furloughs/layoffs.

I don't believe this will trigger the AT pills fragmentation clause, which I don't believe to be all that well written anyway.

I think there is a slim chance of this happening, but never say never.
It'd be nice to see that in writing though.

 

FTB speaks for me too!

 

Wow! Really? Why do you encourage crack smoking?

I flew with a capt last week that said "I will start both engines after pushback and keep them on until block in. No more single engine taxing. I'll show the company."

Being a captain doesn't make someone smart, it just makes them experienced. An idiot with experience is still an idiot.

Let's keep calling each other names and dream of Santa Clause and the Easter bunny. I'm sure they will come by and help us achieve our just rewards after we vote this crummy contract down.

 

I'm done with this. The decision you need to make is the one of whether you want to get rid of 50 seaters before their leases run out. Voting no will ensure that we have MORE 76s than would be allowed in the TA, and MORE 50s than would be allowed in the TA. Other than that, yeah, by voting no, we get rid of the 70 seaters. If you still do not understand this, send me a PM.

 

Thank you.

 

Eggggggsactly!