Bad post, Shiznit. -1.
There's no way these 50 seaters remain profitable, especially with fuel at current levels. All the company did with the 76 seaters is to make them financially viable well into the future. Do you really believe RA and company would not have another plan to get rid of the 50 seaters and avoid the so called financial Albatross because "a contract is a contract?" No way. Waaaay too much money to be lost in bonuses and stock options.

Can you quote the bolded section you're referring to? We must have been reading a different memo. I didn't see anything in the memo put out yesterday that indicated we would be 'granting the company additional flexibility.'

Also, I'm sure you're aware that the mainline fleet and block hours are both slated to increase dramatically over the next several years - not remaining stable.

Not sure where you're going with this, but I have spoken to reps from many different bases (especially NY where a majority of this problem seems to be) and our negotiators. They are all over the company on this, as they should be. There was a spike in sick leave calls at the beginning of June as the various outposts (CPO's) were interpreting the new policy in different manners. Your reps and negotiators have been educating them and working diligently to increase standardization and eradicate the unnecessary calls.

If you have received a call that you felt was unwarranted, it is incumbent on you to keep detailed notes and send it in to the Contract Administration guys to work on. We all play a role in enforcing OUR contract. Your advocates have been doing a great job IMO on this front, and will continue to do so. It's a new program (since early June) and the company has been probing around the edges a bit. We have been quick to remind them that we find this unacceptable.

The rate of inappropriate calls (ie less than 15 days out of work, < 100 unverified sick hours, etc) has been steadily reducing week-by-week since early June; as has the disagreement over what constitutes "sick verification." If you have experienced something other than compliance with the contract, you need to send it in.

Leine- just ranting...

Was referring to 'bold' as in strongly worded, not font.

Just tired of seeing things like sick leave in the TA, weak JV language, telling my reps about it, being told its not a problem only to find out it really is a problem.

Imagine buying a car, finding out its got several potential issues before you drive it off the lot, but the salesman assures you these issues have been addressed. 3 hours after you get home, all the issues you were concerned about happen. You take the car back, and the dealer says he'll work on fixing the issues.

So 1. You feel 'had' because you knew there would be problems.
And 2. Even though the dealer is trying to fix it, your car is still broken and you're pretty sure you'll think twice before buying this brand again.

I hope I'm wrong about the JV remedy, if there is one. I'm tired of being right.

Have you spoken with your Rep about this? People who think the company is abusing the "Good Faith" clause are falling prey to the rumor mill. As of last week, there have been a whopping 31 "Good Faith" phone calls. I called in sick for a 4 day last week. Never got a call. I voluntarily verified my sick leave use witgh a doctor's note. The company accepted the verification. Easy peasy.

I'll bite. Enlighten me as to how DL was going to find another way out of the 50 seaters. I'm not saying it wasn't possible - and I certainly didn't vote for the contract to save Delta money. I weighed the pro's and con's and found it overall to be acceptable, given the early signing, short duration, level of our peer group's compensation, etc.

Your assertion that Delta could just cancel the contracts - let alone quickly and in operationally significant quantities - is just speculation. More likely, Delta would have tried to renegotiate some of the RJ contracts. We MIGHT have gotten the 717's, taken delivery of the 737's, and kept the 757's long enough to 'pump and dump' and the company could have accessed the 76 seaters anyways to do the deal without us - minus all the improvements we got in the contract. Far fetched I know, but possible and since we're all speculating on unknowns anyways . . . . .

Putting all that aside, what are your thoughts on the final part of Shiz's post regarding the gulf carriers, foreign ownership threats, cabotage, etc? That is the next threat that is going to end this career, yet it doesn't seem to get any airplay on here. We are all still looking at RJ's (which is a contained threat) vs the elephant in the room that could end this profession as we know it.

Do you contribute to ALPA-PAC?

Here's a challenge to anyone that stumbles across this post:

Go to this link, and start contributing $5/paycheck to the PAC. You'll never even notice it coming out. To borrow a quote "the job you save could be your own."

No worries. We all need to blow off some steam every now and again :D

We won't know how this plays out for awhile - which I understand is part of why everyone is so bent over this 3 year window. I am in complete agreement that it is TOO LONG. Then they have 1 year to cure, again TOO LONG. Unfortunately we can't do anything until actually fall out of compliance. We can remind them all day, but until we reach the end of the measurement window AND they fail to cure, they haven't violated the contract. They have been made aware of our feeling on this, and you'll notice we're getting a little louder about it, which is good.

That was actually what I took away from the memo yesterday. It was good to finally see us put it down in writing, for public consumption, that we do not take our Section 1 lightly. It was a not-so-subtle deviation from "business as usual" and I'm sure it did not go un-noticed on Virginia Ave. Who knows? Maybe they will find a way to be in compliance, either via growth or AF/KL/AZ pulldown by the end of the measurement, and this will all be a moooo point.

I haven't called in under this new program, haven't been sick. I just don't like the language or the concept. It is only part of the overall contract but its one of those things that makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up, like going below the white bug with no flaps. I have to say it was an even bigger reason for my no vote on the TA than the pay.

You guys didn't need to scope out more 76 seat aircraft to get rid of Pinnacle. Delta just stopped paying our company the agreed-upon sum and due to some other financial constraints we ended up in bankruptcy. From there it was an easy modification of our rock-solid 140 aircraft agreement.

Reps I've spoken with have not said that a deal is in the works at this time and are intent on enforcing the language as written. If the Company is not in compliance and the Company does not want to provide an equitable settlement/solution, then a grievance will be filed and that process will play out.

See above. The reps I've spoken with DO NOT see the WB order as a quid, your premise doesn't make sense.

If the 717's were coming anyway, that means there was no need for the Company to need a new pilot deal....

Yet the DAL pilots secured* 17.7%** raises over 3 years (almost completely front-loaded), on the shortest duration of our peers***.


I disagree. The 717's were coming anyway, but your union was still able to create leverage and improve the pay and QOL of its membership.



*Does not account for improvements in VAC/TRNG/RES pay, improved JV/CS scope, etc.
**Reduced the raise by 2% to account for PSP conversion.
***UAL 5yr - 3 months after DAL signing, AMR/LCC 7yr - upon merger closure, ALA 5yr - 1yr after DAL signing

Wasn't dalpa pushing that if the contract were voted down, the company had a plan B without the 717s?