Airline Pilot Central Forums - Details on Delta TA

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)

- - Details on Delta TA (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/88532-details-delta-ta.html)

The pay raises are fine, but pay is not my primary concern. Retirement is. How about 1% DC increase PER YEAR. And there is no reason to change profit sharing at all. It's profit. Doesn't cost them a thing really. Profits are supposed to be shared. They share plenty with investors by buying back stock and increasing dividends. Our investors got an increase in profit sharing, and we are getting a decrease?

Ok, I saw the reduction in unverified sick leave coming. From 100 down to 80 (approx) But, if you are going to do that then give me another week of vacation. You older guys will remember we used to get seven weeks of vacation. (with trips touching, but that's another matter.) And being able to "bank" 40 hours of it doesn't help. 40 hours is what the average Delta pilot uses per year anyway. So most won't be able to bank anything unless they start flying sick.

Having said all that this TA is certainly in the ball park of what I expected and what we can achieve, so no let's not get all giddy and think this is a referendum for the DPA or some such nonsense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by like2fly2 (Post 1899181)

I'm thinking those in their last three years will vote yes for the instant raise and anyone in the bottom 20% will vote yes for the new airplanes. If that were to hold true, the swing votes are middle seniority pilots who don't care about RJ's at mainline and are not under any time pressure when it comes to rates. This group of pilots is also the group that will be affected most by the change to OE trips.

Anyone agree?

I am in the bottom 20% and there is not a snowballs chance in hell that I will vote for this. I do not need a captain seat. I need my remaining 25 years in this industry to have great pay (don't touch my PS. In the years ahead I see the potential for a 30% PS payout. Which contrary to the ALPA is greater than the 21% raise over 3 years) now removing trips my level of QOL is greatly affected.) Again, ALPA misses the mark and disregarded the survey results.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1899166)

How should I feel? I have made no comments about the TA other then ask for specifics on rumors posted. My first look is that we will gain jobs on the work rule side. I don't like the payrates but if you end up with the NMB they are at the top of the industry.
Many of the rumors posted here did not come to pass. No pay banding, no third party sick verification, no reduction in sick hours, no increase in training freeze except in base moves by a new hire.

There are a bunch of quality of life improvements and many areas of past complaints have been addressed. In total those items have significant value.
There are negatives. The obvious is the potential 5.7% reduction in profit sharing if PTEX is above 6 billion. This year will however be only the second time in history that has happened. The sick verification requirement change I don't like. I can live with the RJ changes given its a net reduction and the 2 for 1 gain at the mainline. I don't fully understand the switch to block hours from EASK but the new compliance periods are a big improvement.
Overall I don't like the payrates but can live with the rest. I had to vote today I would vote no because of the payrates. I will attend the road shows and read what I can. I need to see the costed values in all the work rule changes. We will all get one vote. I suspect this will be a very close vote.

If I am understanding this correctly we will get totally hosed in this regard.since a lot of our JV partners fly much bigger aircraft.

1 767 flight for us will equal a 747 or a 777 flight for our JV partners? :eek:

Scoop

Deleting this post. Uncalled for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gzsg (Post 1899188)

We are reducing hiring. IMO the 190s will not be growth. Replacement aircraft.

Watch out on this one. The new E2 version has an engine upgrade that can support the resurrection of the E195X E2 program. That plane can replace the MD's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flare (Post 1899204)

How does this help anyone already on property? I'm in the bottom 3% and I don't see how this should affect my vote. If anything, won't this bring more pilots on property, which seems (to me) to be a good thing?

You mean would the E190 bring more pilots on property? Short answer no.

No guarantee it's a growth aircraft and no way to guarantee that, the 88s are next to go and it's a sizable fleet, maybe around a 3rd of the jumbo RJ fleet, but still large by mainline standards.

Second, we just reduced the number of pilots needed as FOs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scoop (Post 1899208)

That's my question, we're a small WB airline and the JV partners seem to be a super premium WB airlines. My understanding was that's fine, 1 of theirs crossing the ocean is 2 planes for our pilots and a win.

Now, a A380 crossing = 752 crossing? Seems like we'd lose a huge amount of flying, or as george says, 20%. I go with George.

Well... Now we know where management is getting 5 billon to investors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1899195)

You're not a pilot so stop posting.

+1

Sharpest cran, go back to coloring for Alpa or the company stay away from the pilots, you carry disease and my sick time will be directly affected with your new industry leading sick policy.

Well, I'll give the NC and those in the MEC who guided them credit, they're making C2012 seem really good right now.