Originally Posted by Pilotfo64

Im no expert on lawyer PWA speak....but am I reading 23.Q.7.f exception 1 right? The whole section is in red. It basically says if you call in sick for a trip, and put in a gs for later in the month.....they will use the FAR flight time and duty times from the missed trip (sick trip) to calculate the FAR flight and duty limits when determining if they can legally assign you the GS?

Is this right? So, if I call in sick....I am risking NOT getting a GS later in the month?

Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez

There might be downside protections as you say, but in my mind the fail here is that we didn't get any protection via verbage in the grievance settlement. That should have been done before we agreed to this thing. In other words, we took the hush money, and waited to lower the bar in the TA. Problem solved. And what did we get for that? $2500. big deal. The other thing I see is that there are "threats" as to how we would be harmed if AF parks an A380. They didn't pull down ANY flying in the last 3 years which resulted in DAL being out of compliance on the EASK metric, so what on earth would lead me to believe that they are gong to park those God awful things now? If anything, the addition of the 330s which will not be fully realized before the supposed end of this contract would put us back into the EASK compliance. I have no idea why 350s are even mentioned in this thing. They are going to have zero practical effect on this contract.

Originally Posted by Hank Kingsley

Bottom line is your trading profit sharing for pay raises. Fool me once..., Prof and Bender, we are in a historically profitable era, the most in the history of the industry. We took 46% pay cuts and lost our pensions. The company is paying dividends, when in the history of Delta have they done that. Buying billions and billions of dollars of stock back. Stop the sales job. How can a throttle pushing, short sleeve wearing Delta pilot do that?

Originally Posted by Professor

Junglebus,

At first blush it looks like a crap deal. I thought the exact same thing.

It has taken be three days to understand it.

There are downside protections now. Our 757's get included in the balance. UK traffic is removed. And we spent get penalized for upguaging as we take delivery of 330's/350's.

This and sick leave are elements I feel need the most individual scrutiny and debate.

Originally Posted by Professor

The Company will now be in compliance with our agreement, as demanded by the Delta pilots.

Doesn't this mean we simply redefined compliance in order to allow the company to call themselves compliant?

· If we increase Delta’s block hours by 3.57% (in order to get into EASK compliance), then Delta should have flown 53.0% (by my math there is a 3.98% reduction between “should have” under C2012’s EASK and the minimum under C2015-TA)

So, doesn't that mean this new agreement would allow management to reduce our share of the block hours by 5.7%? 53/50=.943

· The use of aircraft block hours provides better downside protection since the reduction of a single Air France A380 is roughly the available seat kilometer equivalent parking of two Delta A330s.

Doesn't this work the other way too? Now they can add a single Air France A380 and only have to add one Delta A330 instead of two? It's not only downside protection; it's also upside prevention?

Originally Posted by Grumpyaviator

A closed group can be formed and fpl types, mgmt, and union officers can be kept out. It would be solely a tool for pilots to post what they have discovered to be unacceptable in the TA. We used this at XJT and in a few days almost half the pilot group were members of the group. This group was the turning point of the TA, and could not be controlled by the MEC or the company.

Conversation was kept to evaluation of the TA and nothing questionable was said by members that might have gotten them in trouble.

Originally Posted by Professor

Those asking for more info on the JV language:

An objective of the Delta pilots was to improve and tighten compliance measurements. Existing language allowed the Company a three (3) year measurement period and a one year cure period. Contract 2015 tightens this language to a one (1) year measurement period. Should the Company be out of compliance, the Company must return to our capacity share within one-year. Compliance metrics have been simplified with the use of “aircraft block hours” instead of the “equivalent available seat kilometers” used in the commercial agreement. The Company will now be in compliance with our agreement, as demanded by the Delta pilots.

History:
The Delta pilots gained significant mid contract scope protection with the Virgin Atlantic Joint Venture agreement. Since this global production balance agreement has been implemented Delta has grown international wide-body flying. The Air France/KLM/Alitalia Joint Venture agreement fits within our global production balance, focused mainly on trans-Atlantic flying. Flying to the UK within “Bundle 1” of the Air France/KLM/Alitalia commercial agreement overlaps under the two agreements. The Company has not been in compliance with our share the Air France / KLM / Alitalia Joint Venture, instead allocating Delta flying to Latin American and Pacific routes.

Flying to Latin American and trans-Pacific has grown and this growth far exceeds the shortfall in the trans-Atlantic agreement. The MEC library has briefings in the Scope Compliance and Analysis folder. This was covered in the May 2015 slide deck and many previous presentations.

Current Performance:
There is no data to support the conclusion that the change to a Block Hour metric has, or will, cost a single job. Delta has fully deployed it’s international wide body fleet into markets it can most profitably serve. Wide-body utilization has increased and is very high.
· Adjusting to exclude US-UK flying, then Delta’s block hour share was about 52.1% for the 3-year period ending March 31, 2014
· If we increase Delta’s block hours by 3.57% (in order to get into EASK compliance), then Delta should have flown 53.0% (by my math there is a 3.98% reduction between “should have” under C2012’s EASK and the minimum under C2015-TA)
· Due to crew augmentation the Delta pilots fly many more Pilot Block Hours than the other side of the trans-Atlantic JV, we are measuring aircraft block hours
· Delta will continue to deploy its fleet most profitably. 50% is not a goal, it is a downside protection. Nothing prevents the Company from flying more than 50%. The reality is that the Company is growing our percentage of flying. The most recent number I have is 52.7%.

Why Aircraft Block Hours & Improvements
· We get our equal share, 50%, which was the goal of the original agreement
· Block hours = pilot jobs
· The use of aircraft block hours provides better downside protection since the reduction of a single Air France A380 is roughly the available seat kilometer equivalent parking of two Delta A330s.
· When Delta upgrades capacity an aircraft block hour ratio avoids any penalties from replacing B767-300ERs or 757s with A330s and A350s.
· The previously allowed 1.5% variance has been tightened to 1%
· The three year measurement period has been tightened to 1 year, with a one year cure
· Yearly measurements are needed for seasonal market adjustments
· Bundle 1 is transparently defined in the contract 2015
· UK overlap with the Virgin Atlantic JV has been removed

Nothing in these agreements prevents the Company from exceeding our minimum share. In fact, we are currently slightly more than 5% above the minimum requirement of our global production balance in the Virgin Atlantic Joint Venture Agreement, and growing. Further, this growth is measured against a much higher metric; the Virgin Atlantic JV is 87% of our International wide-Body Block Hours, the trans-Atlantic JV is 52%. The net twin aisle wide-Body fleet in Delta service is expected to grow by 9% during the period covered in this TA.

------------------------

Please also check out the materials in the DALPA library.

Originally Posted by Denny Crane

A little analysis looking at C2015 strictly from a pay stand point between now and 1/1/2017 (18 months):

1. Only 8% pay raise. 6% offset by profit sharing.
2. My guess is that 3.b.4 (me too) will be triggered some time by 1/1/17 and provide us with, say 3% so we are now down to 5%.
3. Joint venture will have to be grieved again and, if the last settlement is any indication, we'll get about a percent out of that so down to 4% over the next year and a half.
4. The redefinition of PTIX will probably cost us another percent in profit sharing so now we are down to 3% for the next 18 months.

FAIL

Denny