Herkflyr

We need a good deal, whether quick or not. If it isn't a good deal, vote accordingly. However, why do I get the impression that you and some of the other "just say no" crowd not only don't have a clue as to an agreement that they would vote in favor of, but ultimately, you don't want there to be a deal worthy of a yes vote.

After all, it is far easier, and let's face it, far more fun to vote NO. It doesn't take any brainpower, and you get "cool" points for it.

The only thing that really matters is that if/when a ratified-by-the-MEC TA is presented to the membership for a vote, you read it, evaluate it, and vote per your evaluation of it.

If that is a NO--great! If that is a YES--great as well.

DeadHead

The people who are automatic NO voters, are equally as irritating as the automatic YES voters.

I've already heard the argument from one of these guys starting in with his time-value of money and incessant need for a quick contract, on time.

I mean, we don't even have a TA yet.

Karnak

Agree completely! ALPA, especially the Delta MEC, does a lousy job of giving us a meaningful heads up about LOA's. It's frustrating. I also don't buy into the policy of not releasing most LOA's after they've been reached.

Thanks for personalizing the issue as a problem with my character.

My premise is that pilots are MORE engaged in Section 6 than LOA's. I would like to see more engagement overall, but I understand that many of us don't care about "clean up" LOA's that clarify terminology or change implementation timelines. We tend to care about pay rates, new airplanes, and bases.

I think more pilots will attend roadshows for Section 6 than they would for a JV Settlement roadshow because there are more items of interest for them. I think having all 3 issues combined into a single deal will result in more pilots being more knowledgeable about the JV grievance and the relative vulnerability of profit sharing.

I'm open to contrary opinions on that. I'm not open to you making this issue about me.

What are you trying to gain by not sticking to the issue?

LeineLodge

Agreed. There is nothing to make a decision on yet. Anyone who has already made up their mind is a fool.

Ed Harley

Anyone else hearing this rumor? 5% day of signing, then 10%, 5%, 5%, 4% each respective year for 4 year deal. Profit sharing formula threashold would be tweaked.

pilotjockey

agreed, im a skeptic overall that it will be good enough though but id love a nice surprise
havent heard any rumor like that but no friggin way. better be more like 11/6/6/6/6 with an extra 5 for a ps change for final look of 11/11/6/6/6

sailingfun

Those pay rates would ratify with ease assuming the rest of the contract was Nuetral.
One thing to keep in mind when considering time value is that we should continue to get a 3% raise each APR regardless of the contract status if the company gives out the normal yearly raises.

Carl Spackler

Classic example of why a real union will always be difficult to have at Delta. Herkflyr thinks people who vote NO, do so without brainpower. So only YES voters are true thinkers and users of brainpower.

Herkflyr's probably the majority here at Delta. This pilot group is a YES voting group by default, therefore only a pretend union can actually be had here. Sad.

Carl

pilotc90a

My source said 9% DOS/9% Jan 2016, then 5% each year... My source is almost always wrong, but when I asked on of the guys I was flying with, he said: "yeah, I heard that a week ago". We must have had the same lousy source. He also said it was in-line with the surveys.

I can't help believe that Sick calls and PS caps are part of the mix too. To me 9/9/5/5/5 just isn't enough, esp if they mess with the PS part.

There are a lot of other parts of the contract that are important to me too (and said so in my survey). So it will be more than just the pay rates ill be voting on.

pilotc90a

Part of the problem with so many voters inclined to vote yes, is there are many within the last 5 years of their career and holding out for the perfect contract doesn't benefit them. A 1% raise would more than zero. I get it, don't like it, but I get it.

I think the demographic is changing, but will take a long time to get back to where the dominant voting block could retire at anytime. There may also be a bit of Stockholm syndrome after the 9-11/SARS/Asian banking crisis/BK/Black Swan catastrophe.