Details on Delta TA
06-12-2015, 04:44 PM
#8191
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: undefined
Posts: 328
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
If this TA passes, the ME3 will be the least of your worries. This TA scopes away jobs on both top and bottom.
Carl
Carl
I was simply replying to his post. he was fretting that ditching ALPA was weakening the fight against the ME3. nothing is further from the truth.
06-12-2015, 04:47 PM
#8192
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Lowest Pay I Could Find
Posts: 1,044
Originally Posted by Professor
While this would be nice to do, how would you compare? Some got PBGC on our list. Some more, some less. Many are straight 401k's and DC plans.
Then there is the Airways and AW side of 'AA'. Its a nearly impossible task to make comparisons like that. It would be a three dimensional matrices that nobody could do anything with.
I understand your point, but when making comparisons it becomes very difficult to do anything other than point to current compensation.
You can disagree, that is cool. But this is the rationale.
Then there is the Airways and AW side of 'AA'. Its a nearly impossible task to make comparisons like that. It would be a three dimensional matrices that nobody could do anything with.
I understand your point, but when making comparisons it becomes very difficult to do anything other than point to current compensation.
You can disagree, that is cool. But this is the rationale.
06-12-2015, 04:47 PM
#8193
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Capt
Posts: 2,041
Originally Posted by gloopy
This is a HUGE concession. Its not about stopping rolling thunder so much as it is to get everyone in base on the day before they start reserve like before. Nothing on day one before 10am was one of the best QOL improvements to reserves in a long time. Heck, it was noon in all situations until we sold back the 2 hours during the 117 LOA prior to 3pm the day prior.
This will drive both less staffing and less premium pay as now they will be able to cover much more early morning flying with fewer reserves because all reserves on day one will now be on the hook for early SC instead of nothing before 10AM/Noon.
This is an unbelievable give back of flat out treasonous proportions. Absolutely disgusting that we would ever have even entertained this fantasy "shopping cart" idiocy.
Yet another reason to vote heck no.
This will drive both less staffing and less premium pay as now they will be able to cover much more early morning flying with fewer reserves because all reserves on day one will now be on the hook for early SC instead of nothing before 10AM/Noon.
This is an unbelievable give back of flat out treasonous proportions. Absolutely disgusting that we would ever have even entertained this fantasy "shopping cart" idiocy.
Yet another reason to vote heck no.
06-12-2015, 04:48 PM
#8194
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,066
Originally Posted by ERflyer
Look.
Those are nuggets I don't like either. I am getting up to speed on what all the concessions are as well as the improvements - which there are. On balance if you don't like the TA in its entirety vote no. I am still undecided. If the nuggets are that bad I'll vote no. But right now I'm in no rush and I'll carefully sort through all the details.
But I know now this TA is more money.
Those are nuggets I don't like either. I am getting up to speed on what all the concessions are as well as the improvements - which there are. On balance if you don't like the TA in its entirety vote no. I am still undecided. If the nuggets are that bad I'll vote no. But right now I'm in no rush and I'll carefully sort through all the details.
But I know now this TA is more money.
06-12-2015, 04:52 PM
#8195
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 618
Originally Posted by Flamer
The ALPA machine seems to be making two deminsional colored graphs just fine. With multiple layered assumptions of course.
Its just the way it is. Shall we compare ourselves to those of us at DL who still have pensions as well?
Current state going forward is one of the few ways and contract comparison will be effective.
06-12-2015, 04:55 PM
#8196
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: 757 Left
Posts: 169
Originally Posted by orvil
Understanding the steps to self-help in the RLA is imperative for any unionized worker in the transportation industry. They can be pretty intricate for the first time user. DAL has never gotten to the final steps of this process. I don't think they have ever made it to mediation. NWA is all too familiar with it. Once you learn the process, the steps fall into place.
The first step doesn't take place until the end of the year. We are well ahead of that with the voluntary negotiations that have just concluded.
If this TA is rejected, there is nothing to stop either the Company or DALPA from reengaging in negotiations prior to the amendable date at the end of the year. In fairness, I have to point out that both sides would have to agree to it. There is nothing to compel them other than mutual self-interest.
The first step doesn't take place until the end of the year. We are well ahead of that with the voluntary negotiations that have just concluded.
If this TA is rejected, there is nothing to stop either the Company or DALPA from reengaging in negotiations prior to the amendable date at the end of the year. In fairness, I have to point out that both sides would have to agree to it. There is nothing to compel them other than mutual self-interest.
06-12-2015, 04:55 PM
#8197
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
[B]
Well, at this particular time, I don't care about tightening the compliance period. That can be done as the result of a grievance. We are already in the year to year compliance until they do get in the window.
By the way, can you post or point me to where I can see the full language/results of the JV grievance that was negotiated separately from TA2015? I haven't seen it anywhere and would like to. Thx
Denny
Originally Posted by Professor
I know how much the top end JV bugs us, and it should. But the conversion to block hours is a wash, truly. And we are tightening the compliance period and band so that we can better regulate the balance of flying and not wait three years for a grievance.
By the way, can you post or point me to where I can see the full language/results of the JV grievance that was negotiated separately from TA2015? I haven't seen it anywhere and would like to. Thx
Denny
06-12-2015, 04:56 PM
#8198
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2011
Posts: 275
Originally Posted by notEnuf
I don't believe the question was answered so I'll ask again, Why? What purpose does that serve? I couldn't get the clue either so can I have an answer please? The pay rates say 7/1/2015 not after a vote is finished.
DAL Earnings Date
Earnings announcement* for DAL: Jul 15, 2015
06-12-2015, 04:58 PM
#8199
New Hire
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 5
1. Get pilots to give up ironclad protections on NRT flying.
2. Only protect TRANS-Pacific flying (US-Asia) - "It's a huge win for this pilot group!!!"
3. Buy 49% stake in Skymark
4. Give MEC chair ability to paint Skymark planes in Delta colors, filled with passangers on Delta tickets, but operated by low cost crews.
Management just got that NRT hub back, but with operating costs cut in half...
Played like a fiddle....
2. Only protect TRANS-Pacific flying (US-Asia) - "It's a huge win for this pilot group!!!"
3. Buy 49% stake in Skymark
4. Give MEC chair ability to paint Skymark planes in Delta colors, filled with passangers on Delta tickets, but operated by low cost crews.
Management just got that NRT hub back, but with operating costs cut in half...
Played like a fiddle....
06-12-2015, 05:05 PM
#8200
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 618
JV Changes Summary
I may have posted some of this before, apologize if some of it is a repeat:
The changes to the AF/KLM/AZ joint venture from an EASK to block hour ratio seems like a very confusing contract language change that could erroneously be viewed as a concession. This isn’t the case.
The production balances within the JV are based on twin aisle EASK’s, currently. The language in this contract changes this to a block hour balance. Delta has never been in compliance with the minimum EASK production balance. The recent grievance and settlement addressed this shortfall outside of Section 6 proceedings.
Delta was at 46.8% of EASK’s at the end of the cure date. Using the new calculation which excludes N. America/UK traffic.
Now keep in mind this: we tried to induce greater Delta traffic via this production balance level and it failed. We ended up in a grievance and the company settled it. The goal of this JV language is to keep flying at a 50/50 ratio between DL and the JV partners, offer a tighter compliance window (12mo. v. 36mo.) and tighten the compliance band (+/-1%). This does that.
Some of you will and can argue that ‘we are just giving this up’. We settled a grievance for lack of JV compliance. Its understandable if you didn’t like it. But it is outside of this TA. The TA removes UK flying from the balance, adds single aisle flying that only DL does and is very advantageous to our side, because we fly all of Europe flying with 3 person crews, any AF under 9.5 block is 2 person crew.
The new language applies to only N. Am/EUR traffic between DL and AF/KL/AZ. It provides a 12 month look-back and a 12 month cure period. It converts from twin aisle EASK’s to total Block Hours. The new threshold is 50%+/-1%. This is less than we are currently flying. A potential loss to be sure. However, this conversion starts to include the 757 to Europe. That flying is now in Block Hours.
***professor’s own analysi***********
Something not inclusive to the TA but to think about is that AZ has publicly stated they are leaving the JV in 2017. That represents approximately 6-7% of flying that will flow back into the JV partner balances. Just something to keep in mind.
***end my own stupid opinion***
Now as far as where we are currently. The last 12 months DL had 51.5% of the total block of the JV flying. 1% of the JV flying is 4.36 round trips at an average stage of 8.9 block hours.
The EASK to Block conversion is a downside protection. Let us say that we all pull capacity out of the market. One 380 would be the equivalent to two of our 330’s. So 2 of their pilots (2man crew CDG-JFK) for six of ours.
The block hour conversion is also up gauging protection. Because all of our WB deliveries both real and notional are larger than the 767, EASK balance doesn’t help us keep jobs. As we up gauge the 767s on the JV routes, we add seats and keep 3/person crews. Keep in mind as well that using pilot block hours would hurt us because of the crew imbalances amongst the JV partners, as previously mentioned.
The changes to the AF/KLM/AZ joint venture from an EASK to block hour ratio seems like a very confusing contract language change that could erroneously be viewed as a concession. This isn’t the case.
The production balances within the JV are based on twin aisle EASK’s, currently. The language in this contract changes this to a block hour balance. Delta has never been in compliance with the minimum EASK production balance. The recent grievance and settlement addressed this shortfall outside of Section 6 proceedings.
Delta was at 46.8% of EASK’s at the end of the cure date. Using the new calculation which excludes N. America/UK traffic.
Now keep in mind this: we tried to induce greater Delta traffic via this production balance level and it failed. We ended up in a grievance and the company settled it. The goal of this JV language is to keep flying at a 50/50 ratio between DL and the JV partners, offer a tighter compliance window (12mo. v. 36mo.) and tighten the compliance band (+/-1%). This does that.
Some of you will and can argue that ‘we are just giving this up’. We settled a grievance for lack of JV compliance. Its understandable if you didn’t like it. But it is outside of this TA. The TA removes UK flying from the balance, adds single aisle flying that only DL does and is very advantageous to our side, because we fly all of Europe flying with 3 person crews, any AF under 9.5 block is 2 person crew.
The new language applies to only N. Am/EUR traffic between DL and AF/KL/AZ. It provides a 12 month look-back and a 12 month cure period. It converts from twin aisle EASK’s to total Block Hours. The new threshold is 50%+/-1%. This is less than we are currently flying. A potential loss to be sure. However, this conversion starts to include the 757 to Europe. That flying is now in Block Hours.
***professor’s own analysi***********
Something not inclusive to the TA but to think about is that AZ has publicly stated they are leaving the JV in 2017. That represents approximately 6-7% of flying that will flow back into the JV partner balances. Just something to keep in mind.
***end my own stupid opinion***
Now as far as where we are currently. The last 12 months DL had 51.5% of the total block of the JV flying. 1% of the JV flying is 4.36 round trips at an average stage of 8.9 block hours.
The EASK to Block conversion is a downside protection. Let us say that we all pull capacity out of the market. One 380 would be the equivalent to two of our 330’s. So 2 of their pilots (2man crew CDG-JFK) for six of ours.
The block hour conversion is also up gauging protection. Because all of our WB deliveries both real and notional are larger than the 767, EASK balance doesn’t help us keep jobs. As we up gauge the 767s on the JV routes, we add seats and keep 3/person crews. Keep in mind as well that using pilot block hours would hurt us because of the crew imbalances amongst the JV partners, as previously mentioned.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
