I'll be glad when this thread moves back to the "Major" section. Hope y'all get everything ironed out.

Maybe, is that in writing?

Wow, this is getting rich. In their furious frenzy to sell this POS the numbers just keep getting more juicy. There is no accountability in these false promises. Some guys just want the little pay bump and are dying to get you to sign off on this. DON'T DO IT! If history means anything at all you will regret it.

As ACL said....can we get this in writing? I didn't think so. Buhbye

On a good note, DAL stock just reached a 52 week high.

Pilots do not buy airplanes. However, we can control what they cannot buy!

We wish we could...

Just arrived in ATL for my first day as an ATL-based MD-88 FO. I happened to walk in the pilot ops area during ALPA's presentation of the TA. Lots of contentious questions.

I was waiting by the hotel van area and a captain sat down next to me. We struck up a conversation about the TA. I asked him about his opinion, and he is voting yes. I listened while he talked about scope & pay saying that this is good enough. Then he asked me my opinion.

Boy, did he get hot under the collar...even began comparing our education levels. I was being respectful, but his responses were typically, "didn't you hear what ALPA said?"

The 50-seat jet issue is the big question...he talked about trading them for 76-seaters...why not flown by Delta pilots? Why not trade with Bombardier to get C-series jets flown by Delta pilots? The company has stated that 717's are replacing 50-seaters' lift. I think they could do the same in lieu of 76-seaters.

Then we talked about inflation. He did not want to discuss it. I said in effect, we're getting a 10% pay raise at the end of 3 years due to inflation.

We discussed the fact that the company approached ALPA for a deal...and if we wait 6 months it all falls through in his mind.

I shook his hand and thanked him for chatting after my van showed up.

Don't worry to much about RJ's being flown by delta pilots at mainline. This will happen probably in the next 24 months. What is going to happen? Well, I do believe that Delta management will just purchase a regional pilot group and welcome them to Delta. Seat lock them in the RJ for a few years and then all RJ's will be flown by Delta pilots. Problem solved....this is due to the up coming pilot shortage.

1000th post!!! Woohoo, a milestone!

Council 1 update, May 31, 2012
 

*

*
May 31, 2012
*
By now, most of you have had the opportunity to review the details of the TA. I think that now is a good time for me to explain my NO vote on the MEC and to give you my thoughts on the good, bad, and ugly of the agreement.
*
I think we all were hopeful that this agreement would finally be a “wow” moment for all 12,000 pilots at Delta Air Lines after a decade of pay cuts and stagnant career progression. Unfortunately this is not the case. Management is smart. They do not need 12,000 yes votes, they only need 6,001.
*
Through the feedback that I have received from phone calls, e-mails, lounge visits, PUB events, LEC meetings, and personal conservations, it became pretty clear what the pilots of C1 were expecting from the first post-merger Section 6 negotiations—an industry-leading contract. This feedback also showed that pay and scope were by far the most important issues for the pilots.
*
Pay
This is one of the easiest sections to evaluate with respect to the direction given to us by the C1 pilots. The direction was clearly that the Delta pilots expected to be the highest-paid in the industry. Not by year three or four, but immediately. While this TA does increase pay by 19.7 percent by 2015, in my opinion, it comes too late. Also consider that to achieve this increase, the lower-tier profit sharing was reduced by 33 percent (<$2.5B, the range from which we’ve received our profit sharing). This reduction in profit sharing equates to approximately 2.5 percent of pay, assuming profits near $2.5B. In reality, that 8.5 percent pay increase in 2013 is offset by the profit-sharing reduction for 2013 (paid in 2014), so that it’s actually more equivalent to a 6 percent pay increase. While I do agree that, in general, it is better to have pay in the form of pay rates than profit sharing, I would note that, for the term of this TA, it has been widely forecasted that the airline industry is poised for large profits. I would also suggest that in this case, taking money from profit sharing to add to pay rates is similar to taking money from your savings account and depositing it in your checking account. After the transaction is complete, you are no richer than when you started.
*
Other areas of compensation that were changed include:
*
Increase in reserve guarantee (72-80 hrs) GOOD
*

Increase in reserve maximum to ALV+15.
Increase in pay GOOD; potentially working every day on reserve BAD
*
Average Daily Guarantee (4:30/day) GOOD
*
CQ training (3:45/day) GOOD
*
Distributed training pay from1 minute for 3, to 1 to 2 GOOD
*
Vacation pay from 3:00 per day to 3:15 per day GOOD
*
International pay increased to $6.50/Captains and $4.50/First Officers GOOD
*
Per diem increased $.10 in 2013 and $.10 in 2014 GOOD
*

Scope
While the changes to scope are harder to quantify than pay, I do believe that there is an overall improvement in scope. I do not, however, believe it is a “home run” as others have stated. Block hours will transfer from the DCI carriers to the mainline under this agreement. I think we can all agree that the transfer of flying from DCI to mainline is a good thing. However, when we look at the scope section closely, it is not as rosy as some will have you believe. Note also that the pilot group did not receive any “negotiating credit” for the scope changes that the Company wanted.
*
Current RJ Limits
*
Unlimited propeller-driven aircraft up to 70 seats
*
Unlimited jet aircraft up to 50 seats
*
255 limit on 70/76-seat jet aircraft. Currently there are 102 70-seat jet aircraft and 153 76-seat aircraft. Total 255.
*
3 to 1 growth of 76-seat aircraft/mainline once there are 767 aircraft on the mainline, up to a maximum of 255 76-seat aircraft.
*
TA Limits
*
Hard cap of 450 DCI aircraft (with a few limited exceptions). GOOD
*
Hard cap of 125 50-seat aircraft. GOOD
*
Hard cap of 102 70-seat aircraft EVEN
*
Hard cap of 223 76-seat aircraft. (Must take delivery of all 88 B-717 aircraft.) BAD
*
While we have accomplished setting a “hard cap” on the DCI carriers’ fleets, we have allowed the company to outsource an additional 70 76-seat jets. Under the current PWA, the company could exchange 70-seat RJs for 76-seat RJs if the mainline fleet exceeded 767. While technically they could increase the number of 76-seat aircraft up to a limit of 255, this scenario is highly unlikely. I doubt the company could justify the additional expense of (in most cases) swapping to a 76-seat jet just to add 6 seats. The additional 76-seat RJs are equivalent to “two Compass Airlines.” The key point is that there will be 325 70/76-seat jets that will be outsourced under this agreement. I remember that when I got hired at Northwest, the number of DC-9s on the property (note that this was before the small RJs were born) totaled around 180 aircraft. In the ensuing 17 years, the numbers of RJs have increased by the hundreds, while mainline aircraft have dwindled. That is a hard pill to swallow. Also understand that the block-hour (BH) ratios in place between domestic mainline and DCI do not make a distinction between which DCI aircraft block hours would be pulled down if the Company fell out of compliance due to a domestic mainline BH reduction. This means that if DCI needs to reduce their block hours, the carriers (and Delta) could choose to further reduce 50-seat block hours and leave the 76-seat block hours untouched. In an extreme example that incorporated a significant domestic mainline BH reduction, it could be possible that the DCI flying would be comprised of only 76-seat RJs.
So, in an increasing BH environment, DCI can only add 76-seat RJs as 717s arrive at mainline. That’s positive. However, in a decreasing BH environment, the disincentive/penalty for the company isn’t as great, since they can return to compliance by reducing usage in the smaller, more inefficient aircraft that they want to ultimately “park” anyway. It’s more negative for the pilot group when potentially larger domestic mainline aircraft are reduced than the Company’s disincentive for doing so.
*
This high level of fleet flexibility that the Company receives from this agreement is one of the key reasons that expectations for this TA were so high.
*
The additional 717s added to fleet is a positive move for the Delta pilots. It is important to understand, though, that these additional aircraft do not necessarily mean additional jobs. Just as the transfer of block hours to the mainline is good for Delta pilots, I would not just assume that this translates into additional jobs. With the increase in the ALV/TLV, much, if not all, of the additional hours could be absorbed by the existing mainline pilot group.
*
MISCELLANEOUS
*
Increased Reserve Pay GOOD
*
Sick Leave GOOD
*
ALV Window Increased from 72-82 to 72-84
This is an important issue that I think sometimes gets overlooked. This increase reduces the number of pilots required by approximately 340. These jobs will be difficult to ever get back. While the surveys showed that pilots wanted to make more money, I don’t think most pilots meant that they wanted to work more. UGLY
*
Changed the Summer Bid Months to 30 Days
Again this reduces the number of pilots needed. While this change seems insignificant, I am always hesitant to make changes that reduce staffing. BAD
*
Early Retirement Program
While we were unable to get the medical premiums reduced for retired pilots, the company was interested in an Early Out program to address the pilot surplus due to the productivity increases. I believe this is good for the pilots who will be able to take advantage of this opportunity. I would not, however, anticipate much, if any, movement upward as a result of this program. The company will be selecting pilots in the surplus categories. Once these pilots leave, there is no guarantee that the positions that they left will be filled. In most cases, the positive result could be that pilots aren’t MD’d from overstaffed categories. For example, if there are 10 Early Outs from the 747-400, the company is not required to (and most likely will not) fill those positions with junior pilots. GOOD
*
ADG
Average Day Guarantee was added to the PWA. This is another form of Rig that pays a minimum of 4:30 per day, regardless of any duty period. This does not replace the current 5:15 duty period average but just adds another layer of protection for those trips that have more days than duty periods—rotations (22:00-02:00 exception) where there is a long layover and no duty period for a calendar day. It was not as much as we hoped for, but definitely a step in the right direction. GOOD
*
Duration
3½ years. GOOD
*
[B]Conclusion
While I believe there are many good things in this agreement, it did not meet the direction of the C1 pilots. When the MEC was first notified about the possibility of engaging the company early, we were told that there was “value” that could be extracted from negotiating with the company early. We were originally told that this agreement would increase the number of jobs at the mainline. Remember the company approached us to start negotiations early because of an issue that they needed help with. If there was ever was a time to hit a “home run,” the time was now. Considering the number of gains achieved relative to the amount of “give” for the company, I do not see where we captured the “jobs” or “value,” even considering the time/value/money argument. Here is a quote from Mike Campbell, executive vice president–Human Resources and Labor Relations, shortly after the TA was reached.[/B]
*
“The fleet changes provided by this agreement, coupled with the productivity and profit-sharing changes, cover the investments in our employees.”
*
One of the pro-TA talking points is the argument that if this TA is rejected by the membership, it would automatically mean years of negotiations under the traditional Section 6. While that certainly is a possibility, I do not believe it is likely. Again, remember that the company came to us, to help them with their problem. That problem does not go away if the TA is rejected. This TA gives the company a lot of what they wanted (additional 76-seat RJs, increased pilot productivity). To just assume that the company would tear up the whole agreement and start from scratch is a bit of a stretch. The necessary risk assessment should not just include the potential of a standard lengthy Section 6 process, but also management’s much shorter-term needs and plans.
We are frequently told by many official and unofficial sources (both labor friendly and unfriendly) that it is highly unlikely and difficult that a large airline (much like the railroad industry after full consolidation) would ever be allowed to utilize “self-help” again. If this is true, then major contractual improvements will be dependent upon “opportunities” rather than old-style Section 6. Fine, but most “opportunities” come with some type of “pain” or risk, and they are obviously not “free.” This means that every “opportunity” must be exploited to the max and have its potential leverage fully realized. Maybe there will be more in the nearer term; maybe not, but I simply don’t believe that we got there in this case.
*
I was honored to represent the pilots of C1 during the debate at the MEC on the merits of this agreement. I truly believe that I carried out my responsibility to the C1 pilots when I voted NO to the TA. Now that the TA is in front of you, I urge everyone to be as educated as possible about what the TA means to you. It is now up to you to decide if it meets your threshold.
*
Fraternally,
*
Steve Mayer, Capt. Rep
Chairman, DAL Council 1