Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1206269)

Good to know and I know you have done your due diligence so it's an informed vote.

My issues with this TA are:

Section 1
Loopholes in section one with RJET, the JV. Definition of profit loss. And it's exclusion language where it should be more inclusive (non revenue sharing JV scenarios), no growth ratios that sill leave mainline as the accumulator, and of course I am not happy with allowing the DPJ Global Express jets we filed a grievance over.

Since slow say the 717 lease duration does not matter and it's simply a vehicle to get flying back here, I want to see better ratios and non compliance language specifically tailored to this subpart. I also want the non compliance language to include items like pilot hiring limits, and end of lease provisions. I still submit that the duration of the leases and timing of its possible exit and a viable mainline replacement are very important when looking beyond 2015.

If those saying we must vote for this due to the failing world economy are correct wrt to the economy, wouldn't it be wise not to give up work rules in a non concessionary agreement. That could mean pilot jobs of pilot on the list?

The work rule changes allow us to fly the summer 2012 block plan and the 2013 plan with current staffing even if we net 250 early outs. If we net zero PIRPS my calculations show that we are about 650-725 pilots over. With this agreement we will need to hire sometime in mid to late 2013, and later if we do not net all of the early outs.

If we do not net the early outs then Dal has to decide to either eat the staffing on the WB jets or displace. Keep in mind there will be plenty of displacements with the jet retirements that Dal is planning to make with the 739 order. The flex is keeping those and the result would be earlier hiring. That said Dal has already indicated a lower block plan for next summer. There will be some displacements as a result of this TA to what level will be determined by the early outs and the 757 flex fleet. Both of which do not have hard numbers or protections in the TA. (IF IF IF)

I am less than thrilled by the work rule changes and the ability of flying reserves to alv+15. That is double the max LCW for line holders. It means we staff for winter and fly out butts off in summer. It also means that the ability to swap or drop a trip in the summer will become very difficult. GS's do not go away but the number that will be awarded will go way down with the reserve rule changes and the recovery obligation of RLL line holders. Keep that in mind.

Pay does not pattern in year one and long term that will hurt the profession.

The new latitudes in the sick policy concern me.

The fact that this agreement will reset our timeline for resolution with the NMB. With a December 31,2015 amendable date, if we really wanted to right what we missed here and gain significant gains we could be looking at 2018 or 2019 for our next deal. Right before a recession and right as retirements kick in and Dal will need relief in the form of scope. What this agreement does is sets us up for minimal leverage after all of the debt is taken care of, mergers are done and in effect, give us the leverage for another single or double in 2015-16 or a long drawn out fight for what we deserve to 2018-2019.

In addition to this we all see the items that we are less than pleased with in this TA. Are we going to be willing to expend precious leverage and negotiating capital at that time to fix what we created today?

All of these reasons make this vote very difficult. We all want to vote yes but keep seeing items that are making us sit on the fence or decide its better to live with what we currenlty have and try to rework this desl now versus pass the ta and plan how to fix this TA at a later date when it may cost a lot ore to do so.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1206269)

Good to know and I know you have done your due diligence so it's an informed vote.

My issues with this TA are:

Section 1
Loopholes in section one with RJET, the JV. Definition of profit loss. And it's exclusion language where it should be more inclusive (non revenue sharing JV scenarios), no growth ratios that sill leave mainline as the accumulator, and of course I am not happy with allowing the DPJ Global Express jets we filed a grievance over.

Since slow say the 717 lease duration does not matter and it's simply a vehicle to get flying back here, I want to see better ratios and non compliance language specifically tailored to this subpart. I also want the non compliance language to include items like pilot hiring limits, and end of lease provisions. I still submit that the duration of the leases and timing of its possible exit and a viable mainline replacement are very important when looking beyond 2015.

If those saying we must vote for this due to the failing world economy are correct wrt to the economy, wouldn't it be wise not to give up work rules in a non concessionary agreement. That could mean pilot jobs of pilot on the list?

The work rule changes allow us to fly the summer 2012 block plan and the 2013 plan with current staffing even if we net 250 early outs. If we net zero PIRPS my calculations show that we are about 650-725 pilots over. With this agreement we will need to hire sometime in mid to late 2013, and later if we do not net all of the early outs.

If we do not net the early outs then Dal has to decide to either eat the staffing on the WB jets or displace. Keep in mind there will be plenty of displacements with the jet retirements that Dal is planning to make with the 739 order. The flex is keeping those and the result would be earlier hiring. That said Dal has already indicated a lower block plan for next summer. There will be some displacements as a result of this TA to what level will be determined by the early outs and the 757 flex fleet. Both of which do not have hard numbers or protections in the TA. (IF IF IF)

I am less than thrilled by the work rule changes and the ability of flying reserves to alv+15. That is double the max LCW for line holders. It means we staff for winter and fly out butts off in summer. It also means that the ability to swap or drop a trip in the summer will become very difficult. GS's do not go away but the number that will be awarded will go way down with the reserve rule changes and the recovery obligation of RLL line holders. Keep that in mind.

Pay does not pattern in year one and long term that will hurt the profession.

The new latitudes in the sick policy concern me.

The fact that this agreement will reset our timeline for resolution with the NMB. With a December 31,2015 amendable date, if we really wanted to right what we missed here and gain significant gains we could be looking at 2018 or 2019 for our next deal. Right before a recession and right as retirements kick in and Dal will need relief in the form of scope. What this agreement does is sets us up for minimal leverage after all of the debt is taken care of, mergers are done and in effect, give us the leverage for another single or double in 2015-16 or a long drawn out fight for what we deserve to 2018-2019.

In addition to this we all see the items that we are less than pleased with in this TA. Are we going to be willing to expend precious leverage and negotiating capital at that time to fix what we created today?

All of these reasons make this vote very difficult. We all want to vote yes but keep seeing items that are making us sit on the fence or decide its better to live with what we currenlty have and try to rework this desl now versus pass the ta and plan how to fix this TA at a later date when it may cost a lot ore to do so.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1206338)

I am only gonna ask you about the one thing I highlighted. Who will be able to pattern off of what THIS TA will bring? Since we will be 40% above UCal, and God knows how much above the other train wrecks... who is gonna trump this? And just how does this "hurt the profession"? Frankly, since it is a 3 year deal, I am very afraid that when we start negotiating again in 2.5 (or so) that there will be no one above us to pattern off of... Who will that be? UPS? Oh no... we have to have seat/weight/speed pay, right?? SWA might get us a little bump, but it is very quiet over there... Other than that... ?

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1206269)

Good to know and I know you have done your due diligence so it's an informed vote.

My issues with this TA are:

Section 1
Loopholes in section one with RJET, the JV. Definition of profit loss. And it's exclusion language where it should be more inclusive (non revenue sharing JV scenarios), no growth ratios that sill leave mainline as the accumulator, and of course I am not happy with allowing the DPJ Global Express jets we filed a grievance over.

Since slow say the 717 lease duration does not matter and it's simply a vehicle to get flying back here, I want to see better ratios and non compliance language specifically tailored to this subpart. I also want the non compliance language to include items like pilot hiring limits, and end of lease provisions. I still submit that the duration of the leases and timing of its possible exit and a viable mainline replacement are very important when looking beyond 2015.

If those saying we must vote for this due to the failing world economy are correct wrt to the economy, wouldn't it be wise not to give up work rules in a non concessionary agreement. That could mean pilot jobs of pilot on the list?

The work rule changes allow us to fly the summer 2012 block plan and the 2013 plan with current staffing even if we net 250 early outs. If we net zero PIRPS my calculations show that we are about 650-725 pilots over. With this agreement we will need to hire sometime in mid to late 2013, and later if we do not net all of the early outs.

If we do not net the early outs then Dal has to decide to either eat the staffing on the WB jets or displace. Keep in mind there will be plenty of displacements with the jet retirements that Dal is planning to make with the 739 order. The flex is keeping those and the result would be earlier hiring. That said Dal has already indicated a lower block plan for next summer. There will be some displacements as a result of this TA to what level will be determined by the early outs and the 757 flex fleet. Both of which do not have hard numbers or protections in the TA. (IF IF IF)

I am less than thrilled by the work rule changes and the ability of flying reserves to alv+15. That is double the max LCW for line holders. It means we staff for winter and fly out butts off in summer. It also means that the ability to swap or drop a trip in the summer will become very difficult. GS's do not go away but the number that will be awarded will go way down with the reserve rule changes and the recovery obligation of RLL line holders. Keep that in mind.

Pay does not pattern in year one and long term that will hurt the profession.

The new latitudes in the sick policy concern me.

The fact that this agreement will reset our timeline for resolution with the NMB. With a December 31,2015 amendable date, if we really wanted to right what we missed here and gain significant gains we could be looking at 2018 or 2019 for our next deal. Right before a recession and right as retirements kick in and Dal will need relief in the form of scope. What this agreement does is sets us up for minimal leverage after all of the debt is taken care of, mergers are done and in effect, give us the leverage for another single or double in 2015-16 or a long drawn out fight for what we deserve to 2018-2019.

In addition to this we all see the items that we are less than pleased with in this TA. Are we going to be willing to expend precious leverage and negotiating capital at that time to fix what we created today?

All of these reasons make this vote very difficult. We all want to vote yes but keep seeing items that are making us sit on the fence or decide its better to live with what we currenlty have and try to rework this desl now versus pass the ta and plan how to fix this TA at a later date when it may cost a lot ore to do so.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1206344)

SWA opens this year. FDX opens this year, UPS is open, UCAL is open and nearing an end. Given what I know about the UCAL negotiations they were set to pattern above the TA rates we see in 2013 but now that this is out there the best they will see is maybe a 3% increase above our 2013 rates. Luv will have minimal leverage since no one will pass them for three year. This agreement means that FDX and UPS will only have a few percentage points of leverage.

Because of all of this the gains they will see and in turn what 2015 will logically bring will be significantly lower than what they would be if we patterned in year one.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1206353)

may have edited that picture slightly, but, fantastic summary ACL.

Originally Posted by finis72 (Post 1206360)

Are you saying we have to get 20% up front ? If you are then I can honestly say we will be in 2015 with no gains. How does pattern bargaining work then ? ACL, step away from the key pad and get back to reallity. The deck is stacked and it's not in our favor.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1206338)

I am only gonna ask you about the one thing I highlighted. Who will be able to pattern off of what THIS TA will bring? Since we will be 40% above UCal, and God knows how much above the other train wrecks... who is gonna trump this? And just how does this "hurt the profession"? Frankly, since it is a 3 year deal, I am very afraid that when we start negotiating again in 2.5 (or so) that there will be no one above us to pattern off of... Who will that be? UPS? Oh no... we have to have seat/weight/speed pay, right?? SWA might get us a little bump, but it is very quiet over there... Other than that... ?