tsquare - the only thing we disagree on is the definition of "giving". I am VERY tired of my current pay and benefits. It's way below what I'm "worth". Honestly, I wish I'd picked a different profession, but its a bit late now.

Having said that, I don't believe we've ever "given" anything. LOA46 was a huge cut, but we were trying to avoid BK (and the inevitable termination of our pension). I thought it was unlikely to work, but it was a Hail Mary worth the try, imo. LOA51 was under the gun of 1113 in a system that is so stacked against labor its pathetic. But it is what it is. The JCBA, while marginal, is moving us in the right direction. When even LUV can only manage 2% raises (albeit from a higher number), and we managed 4-5%, it sucks, but its still the best available at the time. Hopefully, in 2012, DAL will be back minting cash, and we can get some of that.

We really are on the same side.

Ok so I really don't want to ruin the thread by going off topic ;-)

I talked to a buddy of mine in Japan (74 driver for NCA) and he gave me the following perspective:

Apparently the JCAB (Japanese FAA) is pulling the strings behind the scenes.
JAL is on the very brink of bankruptcy and needs cash desperately.
JAL tried to restructure the pilot retirement but the pilot union and management hit an impasse. Apparently this restructuring was a precondition to obtain financing from Japanese banks.

Unable to come to an agreement the JCAB has directed JAL to sell a stake to Delta. The cash infusion is supposed to be combined with a code share deal with Delta, this would enable JAL to cut overlapping routes and cost.

160 expats have been terminated and they are going after the over 60 pilots. In addition JAL is in the process to sell its cargo operation to NCA.

No other airline can offer cash and codeshare the way Delta can in this case.
Also this agreement would keep our slots active per contract...
Having worked for a Japanese airline and seeing how things are done over there this sounds very plausible...

Cheers
George

Agreed, we all want what we are worth. Some are more pragmatic than others, but in the end we all want to restore this profession to the maximum extent possible.

He is to obtaining that goal in 2012!

I certainly understand that its very difficult to make gains in a poor economic environment, but eventually you have to make a stand. I haven't been at DAL long, but you guys sure went through a lot. HUGE paycuts, lost pension, reduced manning and a lot of stagnation through RJ growth (the list goes on)... The only offest was a huge early retirement several years ago (who would almost all be gone now anyways).

Anyways, I understand that we are labor and not management, but it is absolutely sickening everytime I see the hits that labor has taken over the last eight years vs. the steady rise in executive compensation. I'm a realist about contract gains, but I'm not about to accept a poor contract in 2012 because (______insert crisis) is going on. The executives wouldn't and we shouldn't either. It seems that management can always find a way to barely eek out a profit, or show a loss, etc... Our recent contract barely accounts for inflation (and while better than nothing, we had some leverage at the time due to the merger). I can't accept the status quo going forward.

-Moonshot (getting more jadded by the day :D ).

If you believe that 76 seat jets are the foundation of a restorative contract, then we disagree.

There is no single item in the contract that by itself will provide restoration. They all work together. I remind you again that in the 86 and 96 contracts scope was tightened at Delta. Small jet Scope was loosened under economics and duress. Every settlement and agreement since bankruptcy that has touched on scope has tightened it.

There are 153 76 seat jets allowed under our current contract. There will be no more 76 seat jets on the property until mainline grows substantially (management hits the three for one clause).

There are a total of 255 70-76 seat jets that can be on the property. Right now they have about 230 total. They can add about 25 70 seat aircraft until they hit the limt. Should they do that and grow mainline, they will have to remove 70 seat aircraft to add 76 seat aircraft.

DCI is shrinking, and rapidly. There is a solid foundation in scope. You just don't like the length of the pilings. I get that.

I have been hearing some of the same. DAL can give cash for this, where the JFK deal is bonds. Having the Japanese government involved will give DAL assurances that we will not get hoodwinked.

Section 1E has some very good protections in it. I suggest all read it. PWA is avail on the DALPA site in the library. If we do this I hope for a 25.00001%+ stake in the company. If it is just a code share I have my worries. For this to be good for us, we need some major assurances from the Japanese, a greater than 25% stake, and a few quid pro quo protections. I for one would love to have a DAL pilot base in Tokyo. With these contract pilots, we could assume the contract positions as these contracts come up.

Food for thought.

How under Section 1 can management code share without our concurrence using an airline that operates other than permitted aircraft types?

From this it sounds like they would want to put their pax on our planes. I guess this thing could go either way. Hopefully it swings to the good.

Reread what I wrote. In effect a firm commitment like jets on our property flown by Delta pilots in the 77-120 seat range would allow a lot of guys to get off of the antacids. Having the company agree to 153 76 seat jets, and current 70 seat airframes would also go a long way to shore up this position.
DCI is shrinking but it is not as the result of our Section 1. I understand, who cares, it is shrinking. What we need to do to "increase the depth of the pilings" is shore up what we have in Section 1 as it pertains to SJS. There is nothing currently in there that would prevent another DCI explosion when a cost effective 70- seat jet is developed. Economics are killing it currently, but that does not mean that with new technologies, that they will once again become cost effective. It does not mean that a different team will not want to expand DCI for whatever reason. What it means is that the section is open to this, and as a result leave us vulnerable to future plans.

I like the way this management team sees the issues with DCI. There are more issues than cost, they see that too. What I would like to see is them commit in writing to their views. Like I said, that will go a long way to easing the fears of many.

Does this group as a whole want to take back the 76 seat flying no matter what? Maybe, maybe not. We will codify that prior to section six. What this group is sick of is having their flying outsourced at every juncture. We took out the percentages a few years back because they were just to ugly to look at. DCI and SJC scope has taken its hits. Pilots are mad at seeing a 76 seat jet that is 15 feet shorter than a 90 parked next to them. They would like those seats here. Many guys I talk to want that flying. Will we get it? Who knows, but it needs to be looked at.

I want what is best for this group. A 100 seat jet would make this group happy. Having the limits placed on the 76 seat and 70 seat flying would make this group happy. Taking the 76 seat flying back would make this group happy. Point is that there are many ways to gain the support of the group, but first they need to be listened to, their ideas and fears heard and understood. Telling our pilots they are wrong does not solve the issue. Educate them, quit telling them they do not get it. If we can do that, you may get people to see what you see. Just a thought.

I thank you for the constructive debate.

It can't. Point was that a greater than 25% stake allows more protections for us than a JV. IE it is in the contract, and therefore less to negotiate.

As you know there are certain triggers that are met at 25% ownership.