Can we attach a video clip to our opener? Just the Jerry McGuire clip from Rod Tidwell, "Show me the MONEY!!!!!"

.


Quit with the "reality of the NMB" stuff. The company wants something, there is no other reason to start talks early. Don't forget LEVERAGE, that wasn't used in the joint contract. "Hurry up, Wall St is watching.... We'll get $2 billion in synergies and make it up next time....". We're waiting.....

Like it or not, the level of improvements it WILL take for restoration is massive. That's just the straight math and there is no getting around that.

Now does it all have to come via a straight increase to pay rates? Of course not. SWA's current 12 year Captain rate is $186.06, which with their work rules yields an annual income of $234,435.60. If we could find a way to put their work rules into effect here without even increasing our current rates at all, it would be a 30% increase in W2. Now raise the rates a little too and you're talking real restoration. Now I'm not necessarily saying we want all of their work rules as is. It probably wouldn't even really fit the Delta model. But some combination of work rules and pay rate increases needs to produce (this is my acceptable range) an income of C2K+COLA at a maximum and SWA at an absolute minimum. Realize that is a range of almost 70% (again, increase in W2, not necessarily just pay rate) at a maximum and almost 50% at a minimum.

Sorry, Check, I've got to disagree with you on this one. Either we want restoration (or parity with SWA at a minimum) or we don't. You just can't have that if you don't ask for it. And I'm not willing to throw in the towel at this point.

Check,
Good response, thanks. There a few reasons I would like to see details. I could print out that piece of paper, and be holding in my hand the very best contract I could expect to see from this round of negotiations. The TA we will eventually settle on will fall somewhere between what we have now and that initial opener. I can then compare that to the contracts from other carriers and make sure that Delta is the best place for me to accumulate seniority for the next five years. If we get another bankruptcy-level contract and/OR make little to no headway in scope, I will most likely move on. Not an idle threat, just the business facts. Being able to make this decision earlier rather than later would keep more options open and help avoid languishing for another five years as we have for the last five. So, full disclosure, that is the primary reason for wanting to see the numbers. There are other places willing to pay their pilots well for their backgrounds and experience that are not intent on outsourcing flying at every opportunity. If this mindset stays at Delta, other things become more attractive.

R,
Flyz

I'll grant you that. That's why rather than flailing around trying to find that magical percentage between leaving money on the table and getting parked for a million years by the NMB, we instead took charge and framed the debate in terms much harder to marginalize. Forget the XX% IMHO and focus on grounded and unemotional reasoning like:

"profitable LCC parity (SWA) in rates and W-2 with reasonable premiums up from there to account for our significantly higher per pilot revenue, for narrowbody aircraft with seating capacities between a 737-700 and a 737-800 and up from there for larger airframes, with significant improvements in scope at all levels (DCI, AS, JV's), improved rigs and min day, vacation credit at least equal to the improved min day, increased reserve guarantee (once again, profitable LCC parity)..." etc.

If they want to play hardball, we merely point to profitable LCC parity of 100% scope and say that's the starting point and what do you want to give up to keep the 50 seaters...etc".

If the company brings up "productivity" we can nuke that out of the water by clearly showing that we want to be productive but its the company that chooses to operate a million fleet types, including short, medium and long haul fleets and especially redundant fleet types in similar size ranges, and in fact believes they get marketing and aircraft supplier premiums in doing so. In order to get those advantages, they gladly trade away some productivity by choice...their choice...and we are fine with that as it appears to be a great thing for the company (our per pilot revenue is significantly higher than the most productive pilot groups out there)

If they bring up how they "can't afford" scope improvements, we point out the greater than 10 billion dollar blunders in the RJ world alone (about a billion dollars a year in losses and unanticipated costs over the last 10-15 years) as well as hits to our product and brand, operational inefficiencies and numerous layers of redundant managements at all levels, then finish them off with showing the CPA/ASA's to the NMB and pointing out that most to all of what we have to pay for a contract cancellation are the leases...which we are already guaranteeing or outright paying directly anyway.

Then show how reasonable we are by pointing out the generous scope relief (compared to SWA) that we would still allow...50 seaters limited to how many the company wants, with a falling limit as they are parked...zero cost item, and a fair drawdown table for the 51-76 seat RJ's that allows many contracts to run their course anyway.

That way we don't have to worry about naming a percentage, yet the membership will get a clear idea of approximately where we stand.

What many are borderline jaded and expect to see is something so vague that it marginalizes itself like: "pay, job security and work rule improvements, yadda yadda yadda".

We can mess this up with too low of an opener as well as being so vague as to render it meaningless. I can just picture Bill Clinton right now, only with an epic mustache, saying something like "well that depends on what the definition of scope is". Theoretically even larger [so called] RJ's could be sold out from under the membership and it be called a "job security" or even a scope victory because it contained some nebulous "no furlough clause" or whatever.

You very well may be right on that. But what I worry about more than how little they are willing to give is how much more they are going to attempt to demand (gutting more DL pilot jobs to send to DCI, AS, foreign airlines, etc). What I worry about even more than that is what our union may be willing to give up (flying) to "get" (pay rates probably still lower than SWA, etc). That's why:


Done and done. Actually that was the easy part. Ready to walk, ready to walk away if necessary.

Great post! The 12 year Cpt rate converted from trip pay shown on APC is higher than your number above but other than that I agree with your logic.

Airline Pilot Central - Southwest | Major-National-LCC

The company might want something. It might be worth 100 million dollars to them. That would not even pay for 1/5 of the improvements I expect for 1 year of the contract. We as pilots often way over value items we think the company has to have. They can do any of the mergers concepts being thrown out now without us.
USAIR is a well functioning airline at the moment with a totally dysfunctional pilot group. Don't think that lesson is not lost on airline managements.

Actually there have been several articles written recently describing how US Airways pilot situation makes them much less desirable when it comes to mergers and reduces their marketability.

I am less certain that Delta could be successful (ie money making outcome) doing a true merger without pilots on board than you are. Of course my assumption is based upon us having a union with a backbone. With that, you may well be right after all.:rolleyes:

Looking at the third quarter DOT stats, you're right. Just goes to show that more people are being born than you can p**s off.

That is because they have looked into this tactic:

The Simpsons - Half-Ass Work Ethic - YouTube

Scoop :p