OK, I see where you are going now and I agree there are other ways to skin the cat. I do not agree with the statement about us being a bigger value nor how you could quantify that. It's a feel good statement and nothing more.

Agreed, just to tag on to my leaning solid no:

We've heard the mantra forever--from the same guys who were part of the BK takedown: At least we preserved the work rules. Pay comes and goes.

I have the largest problem with the allowance for more 76 seat jets in addition to the keeping of the 70 seaters--as opposed to the exchange under the current TA. This gives leverage to the company 1 or 2 contracts down the road. Eventually, my opinion is that those 70 and 76 seat jets will be traded and/or increased to even more efficient jets. The product the jets currently offer already competes with mainline product--unlike 50 seat jets which never will. Down the road, this will become even more of an issue. I think this issue is still very dangerous to our small narrow body flying. "Less" total RJs was going to happen anyway, IMO. Even if it didn't, we had the limit of 55 large RJs--the ones with first class, less weight restrictions, and less of a hammer in future negotiations.

I have asked the negotiators what the "slop" is for the percentages and ratios post 717/76/50 seat shuffle, and how many mainline aircraft reductions that would equate.

The Alaska carve out could very well take care of the 50 seat problem entirely, again down the road, to fill the gaps in unprofitable/uncomfortable 50 seat flying by default via merger/economic crisis.

The carve out for the 5 corporate jets is a slap in the face--pure and simple.

Pay is not there. I don't think that anybody really disagrees that we fell short there.

Everything else equates to work rule changes, not for the better. Those coveted work rules--which "must be preserved at all costs". Reserve pays more to work more. Sick time returns, but only from where it never should have been in the first place, and with scrutiny attached-fair or unfair. Even jury duty of--all things. It equates to more pay for more work. The lack of the 6th week of vacation return, no penalty for unnecessary reroutes, no increase in min day to offset lack of adequate pay increases, and emergence of min calendar day without sufficient teeth leads me to the conclusion that we indeed sacrificed quality for expediency.

Although explaining the plan going forward is not really my job, no doubt it will be insisted upon. My plan is to go back to the company with a laundry list of a few items which may be tweaked, and if necessary continue into full section 6 negotiations. Time value works two ways--on our side and their side. Where is our leverage? It is in the company coming to us and looking for a deal, it is American losing control of their company in the near future, it is SWA coming up for negotiations in the near future, it is a retirement bubble hitting Delta in the near future, it is a further unknown with FARs hitting Delta in the near future, it is the right thing to do, IMO--especially with respect to section 1.

What are the pitfalls? Global economy uncertainty, rejection of the AA PWA, lackluster progress by just about every other unionized carrier.

Finally, there are promises out there that just bug me. As an example, how could the company know that they can change out all of these RJ agreements unless the deals had already been completed, or very nearly so? Could our section 6 be a back working of an RJ deal? That annoys me to no end. But that's emotion I guess so I'll stick to the facts. I expected to make more for working less. TO has been quoted as saying that this is the new world order--or something like that. I won't be a party to that with my vote.

I believe in proactive engagement. I believe it should work both ways. I am not, and will not be a member of DPA. I do not believe that they are the solution. I believe that we have sacrificed quality for expediency. Short of a global collapse, 1113 affirm of AA contracts by the judge, I will be a solid no. For those reasons, I will also not vote until very close to the end of the voting window.

Well, those are they words of one rep.


I am akin to the first part of my post. Out of the box ideas will win the day. We need more of them.

I also pushed for a 2% dos raise and then a CPImor a percentage of CPI with CPI beyond the amendable date. After an initial overall compensation bump it would allow us to hit quick doubles and singles with shorter duration and not need huge increases every time a PWA become amendable. The key is qol, retirement funding and maintaini g buying power after we get to the compensation level we as a group deem acceptable. Kicking that dirt bump down the field as being the best option is not logical to many.

Great post Brake and I cold not agree more with everything you posted. The redo would be a tightening of a lot of loopholes and that is no low cost. The work rule and pay change costs would still be cheaper than plan b.


Again can we live with this TA until 2018-2019? That is what you need to ask yourself.

I don't understand most of your logic.

Explain to me why the RJET exemption affects your career at all. Did you have some expectation to fly Frontier jets or not?

Profit/loss definition. What do you have problems with? This is industry leading.

Private jets? Really. Don't pilots get hired at Delta to get away from that type of flying? 5 aircraft? Seriously, this is almost comical.

Without any ratios, there will be no loss of capacity at DCI to any degree, so mainline is directly the accumulator for all losses. With the ratio, mainline must grow by 40 aircraft to meet the minimum ratio. So you are concerned about mainline shrinkage and you want to choose the path the ensures the most mainline shrinkage, that does not compute.

Somehow getting 717's at mainline is now a bad thing, please define that. You have no ratio now, so raising the ratio by a large amount is somehow a concession. Explain.

You do understand that the ratios continue on even after the amendable date. How do they meet the ratios if they don't have any aircraft to fly?

When do we need to hire if we don't do this deal?

What will happen to displacements if there is no early out and no transfer of flying from DCI to mainline?

I don't know how many times we can debunk this myth about ALV+15. It is just a blip on staffing. Oh well, I guess people want to believe whatever they want to believe.

The RLL is a GAIN for pilots. How can you paint this as a concession? If a pilot wants this option, he can take it, if not then he has other options including sitting reserve. You need to explain why this is a concession.

Even though our new pay rates are industry leading, you say that is hurting the profession. Explain. Who is setting the rates besides us? Which airlines do we not lead already?

You think we can go back to get a new agreement now yet in the future you predict that negotiations will take 3 or 4 years. Which is it? Are we going to take 3 or 4 years in this section 6 and not the next one, or are we going to only take 3 or 4 years in the next one.

Maybe you are working at different airline than I have over the last year. At the airline I work at, Chief Pilots are calling pilots about sick leave whenever they feel like it, pilots are complaining loudly. Now there are new restrictions on when the Chief Pilots can call you. This is a concession? Explain.

I am sorry but there is pretty much nothing but hand wringing in your post. You complain about airline shrinkage but ignore the fact that this TA has much stronger pilot job protections than we have now. You try to equate your concern about wide body flying shrinking without relating it to some problem in this TA. In fact, this TA has industry leading protections for JV's. You take events that could happen with or without this agreement and somehow equate them to passage of this TA. Somehow, you think living with the old lesser protections will be better than the better (but not good enough in your mind) protections in this TA. That defies logic.

My question to you is, all hand wringing aside, what strategic path do you suggest that ends up with a better agreement? This agreement puts about $1 billion more in Delta pilot pockets and ensures a greater percentage of flying goes to mainline. When will you beat that and how? That is the question.

That is allows them to fly for an alliance and our alliance when not using thebdal code.
It may be industry leading but it does not convert all scenarios to force a production balance.

How is it comical? We filed a grievance over this and now we allow them?

Yes, I am. I am looking down the road after the build up and the PWA allowing them to still use the new growth as an accumulator.

The 717 is not a bad thing, trading large rj's is not a great thing but for that quid I want much better language in the downside protections. As you admit 40 growth jets is the bottom for the ratio, but again we are getting what? 40'growth jets for 70 large rj's? Good quid?

Um yes but the ratios have top end slop for our flying.

about the same time. Maybe six months later.

Fear? We have protections in place and to date we have held the surplus. We are still under the two year roi on furloughs

Debunk it. A reserve on the hook for 15 hrs of more flying is on the hook for more flying. You used current staffing to model this not future block hr needs.

With recover obligations and reducing open time flying.

SWA FDX SWA AF KLM BA et al. Patterning in year three does not help in their round

if we take this we will demand more and Alpa will have to get it in 2016. That will take time. I do not honestly see Dal walking from this deal for a few low cost changes and a little more compensation;not necessrarly pay and if they do they do. Start the timeline now or wait until 2015 to start the timeline?

It is if we codify the releas of medical records

No that is not what I said. I said that the loopholes in some really good ideas still leave us open. Big difference. Dal wants to be rid of the rj's. We can fail irate that but what I am trying to wrap my arms around is that what I see in the TA is worth that quid. I am not yet convinced to vote for this.

I have stated it before. I was better writing in the improvements. I want the direction of the pilots to be heard. I would be willing to take the long road to get what the pilots demand per the surveys and what direction the reps gave after time valuing the surveys for an expedited process.

There is a lot of good in this deal, but some of the language compounded with the work rule changed, more rj's, and lack of pay; with was stated as a number one priority btw, are not quite there. It's not that it's a horrible deal, i just am not convinced yet that it's good enough to live under for three if not six year given where the business cycle and the airline will be at that time.

Convince me without selling me fear.

Uhhhhh.... maybe???? <------click

I think you need to ask yourself if you can live with our current contract until then

bingo!!!!!

When do we need to hire and how many if we DO this deal is what I would like to see from dalpa.

It is being passed off by many in this forum as advancement for the junior types, but apparently there are no "official" estimates at the numbers or dates for hiring. Seems to be a whole 'lotta conjecture.

Show me the official numbers on hiring alfa.


What's comical is that we are giving up more scope by giving them a carve out for these jets. Even after the union said scope was not for sale. Allowing Any particular type of aircraft (private vs airline) scope to be given up is unacceptable. Those jets violated our current scope clause, correct? This ta gives them up.