Thank you!

This is a good thing…NHs should get hotels and off training pay quicker, there is no argument there…should have happened a long time ago.

the only angle I could see is that it’s a huge recruiting gain for the company in terms of hiring. I suspect they are seeing a lot of CJOs elect to go to other companies (maybe not a lot, but more than previously), and I’m sure training hotel expenses and NH pay play a factor in where people decide to go (assuming CJOs from multiple companies).

So, I guess i could see how this could be seen as helping the company now that they’re in a hiring jam and their previous ability to pinch pennies on NHs is biting them in the ass…even though the eventual result is more pilots on the line and better pay for NH pilots. Now, had we attached some new DH provisions to this MOU it would really be a win for the pilots…

We solved a recruiting problem for the company. Pilots don't work for a company, we provide labor under the terms of a negotiated agreement. Our current PWA is lacking in the eyes of prospective pilots and management knows it. Delta is getting recruiting improvements ahead of providing a complete contract.

If this is your first contract cycle, you will notice improvements for pilots are typically implemented in phases over the length of the contract, while company improvements are day 1. If this isn't your first contract cycle, shame on you for not paying attention. Company improvements are now being done via LOA before we even have a contract, giving them a reason to stall. Call me an @55H01E, but I'm in favor of holding a few new hires hostage to expedite the timeline for a contract that benefits all 13,000 pilots.

Side question: Do probationary pilots get a vote if the PWA goes to memrat?

No idea on the side question. I respectfully disagree on the willingness to hold new hires hostage for what hides behind door number TA1 or door number TA2. The delay on moving from new hire pay to first year pay affected a small number of pilots and I am doubtful it figured or figures into recruiting calculus for many CJO holders. Honestly, how many within our own pilot group knew how many pilots this affected before the the announcement? And, which of us doesn’t believe we’re a little bulletproof to remote risks like that? So how many prospective hires really knew about this and thought it was an insurmountable risk?

Despite it being an aberration and a small number of pilots, it’s not a small thing if you’re one of those pilots. Going from new hire training pay to first year pay, at a minimum of 72 hours a month is a gain of upwards of $1,700 a month, or about a 33% pay raise for them when they get off training pay. I suspect that like myself, you see more money carved off the top line of your pay each month than what these new pilots make, so it may be small change to you or me, but significant for them as they make the transition. Yes, I do want to see a more expeditious contract to rectify two plus years of stale pay rates and a host of other changes that we ought to enjoy in our work rules, but I don’t think righting this wrong outside of section 6 has surrendered the critical leverage to bend the company to our collective will. If I want to kick something or someone to make myself feel better about the slow pace of contract negotiations, I can think of lots better targets than shiny new delta pilots and I’m sure you can too.

Ok...that then gives us yet more backing to claim that PS isn't pay, don't include it in our competitor comparisons, no?

No. Filler.

While I generally agree. I think it should have been solved in section 6. We need to stop helping the compay fix its problems. I'm at the wants to watch to world burn stage of the batman.

Respectfully, the company fixed one of our problems, not the other way around. It was the right thing to do to address an unforeseen, highly unique, and massive penalty on some of our newest brothers and sisters.

definitely agree. Now let’s get rid of NH pay altogether and have everyone start on flight pay

While I agree it was the right thing to do, I think this was a company need. I would be inclined to believe that we're already seeing the hiring pool thin, and NH pay was hurting retention / applicants of potential new hires. So if this was a "company need" to keep enough people in the pipeline, than we should have used that leverage to help our, ever worsening (inflation / optimizer), 6 yr old contract. They had a NEED, we NEED a new contract. And the end result, a good new contract, would address our need and also their need, by attracting more applicants. WIN, WIN just takes a little longer?