Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1903881)

I would read the new language in section one.

Entire TA language is up at dal.alpa.org

It uses aircraft block hours now and removes all UK flying.

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1903882)

It's aircraft block hours. It protects us from AF being able to operate 9.5 hrs with 2 man crews vs our 3 man crew requirements.

Originally Posted by qball (Post 1903873)

I would read the new language in section one.

Entire TA language is up at dal.alpa.org

It uses aircraft block hours now and removes all UK flying.

Originally Posted by dragon (Post 1903889)

Why are we carving out the VA flying? What is the protection from an AF380 flying on a route we use a 7ER?

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1903870)

Denny,

There are significant concessions in the rest of the contract. There are also significant gains in the rest of the contract. Some of the concessions and gains are in the same section (look at Scope, for example).

I understand that negotiations are a two way process but why are there so many significant concessions in a negotiating environment like we have never seen before! I think we will have to agree to disagree about Scope. If this agreement immediately puts the company in compliance with the JV balance, it's a give.

Each person will have to look at all the details to come to an informed conclusion. Then we vote, and the majority decides our path.

Originally Posted by dc10guy (Post 1903886)

Wow just wow!!! I does not effect me I don't care about everyone else. More money more money.

Originally Posted by TheManager (Post 1903761)

PROLOGUE

Remember in C2012 when new medical note requirements came up? DALPA said, “The Company can already ask for a note. [So don’t worry].” DALPA went on to say that there were transcripts of the actual agreement with the negotiators so this would not be a problem. Remember what happened? The company went on a rampage demanding notes from many sick calls. In the end, DALPA resolved this issue and we currently are in a steady state.

I do not know the answer to this question, but the question to understand is “Under our current contract, how many pilots are subjected to Section 15B review annually?” My guess is that it is a very small number. (BTW Section 15 is not in the published TA. You should read it.)

We have precedent in both of these situations that will be subject to change as soon as the contract changes. Think about this change and what you would do if you were on the management side.



MY QUALIFICATIONS

MBA Wharton School of Business, Ex McKinsey consultant, Current manager of small New England Psychiatric practice, Current Delta Pilot



PRESENT DAY




WHAT IS IN A MEDICAL NOTE?


This chart below is part of a reminder card handed out to all doctors in our local hospital. Any doctor will recognize this as the first part of a standard initial visit medical note. When you go to the doctor’s office, someone documents many of the things below. The important part to understand is the PMH (past medical history – which can include whatever you or other doctors share with this doctor – Of Note: IT IS HIPAA NOT HIPPA and doctors do not need you to sign a release to share your medical information with another doctor associated with your treatment under HIPAA), PSH (past social history – which can include almost anything about your past that the doctor asks about or you share), MEDS (all current meds and many times past medications), Family History (where you share all your family medical history), Social History (which can include employment, incarceration, military, and many other things), ROS (review of systems) where you tell the doctor about what hurts, and then any outside medical reports.

When you sign a release under Section 14 G 2, your release for a “specific sickness” gives DHC potential access to your entire medical and social history.


There is no doctor’s office that is going to redact sections of your medical note and any serious problem requires you to be honest with your doctor about everything if you want proper treatment. Your medical history should be between you, your medical doctors and your AME. Delta has absolutely no place in this.


DALPA will argue that this release is already in Section 15. Remember, section 15B is only for very specific situations related to your FAA certificate, not about justifying a sick absence. You must think like management. By moving this release to Section 14, it will become commonplace for Delta to ask for a medical release and therefore you automatically release your entire medical history to Delta. I cannot foresee the end game in this change, but it is most definitely very bad.


If I were on the other side (DHC), I would start to question every pilot’s medical justification when that pilot breaks the medical threshold. I would question the validity of the content of the doctor’s note justifying a sick absence (allowed by section 14G3). I would require additional information every time.


I audit or read about 80 medical notes a week – granted, many are not what we may experience in our own medical situations, but many are - and I can tell you that in any given note, there is a ton of information that is not related to the “specific sickness” for which you are seeing the doctor. I also spend a lot of time communicating with disability companies. Disability companies almost always question the treatment of the physician and their “standard of care.” It is a very low threshold to disagree with a doctor’s treatment or diagnosis when it comes to a disability company or in this case DHC. Literally any doctor can question some part of another doctor’s note and disability companies do this all day long. Your doctor has absolutely no skin in the game except his or her pride when it comes to justifying your illness for sick pay. No doctor wants to spend time writing more letters just so you can get paid for your diarrhea. I believe it would be best to think of Delta (DHC) as a disability company in that, in the end, their sole purpose is to save the company money.


By changing this section of the contract, we are opening a can of worms. In addition, we, the pilots, are responsible for all medical costs under the new verification unless it is under the “good faith” basis. The cost and time will be significant.


This was the most poorly negotiated section of the TA and is enough to vote NO regardless of any money involved. Anyone over 50 will probably already have encountered a medical problem that has required FAA review. Anyone under 50 will encounter this situation sometime in their career. You do not want to spend countless hours and dollars defending yourself to Delta while trying to get back your medical from the FAA or trying to get paid for a legitimate sick leave. And you certainly do not want Delta deciding that they are “not able to satisfactorily assess the medical basis for the use of sick leave.” (Section 14G3) If you believe for one minute that there was not a purpose in moving the medical release to Section 14, you are sadly mistaken. This will become the mother of all harassment programs for Delta pilots.

Name withheld by poster. IM for details

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1903824)

This will be a very damaging TA regardless of how we vote on it. It we pass it we eat massive concessions all around, including unprecidented foreign alter ego airlines and a lower and further reduceable AF/KLM JV. If we vote against it it will take a strong effort to overcome the baseline it created.

So I propose we gift the company 100 million dollars.

That's right, and I'm not kidding.

If the net value of this TA is supposedly 1.1B over 3 years, and assuming it was properly comprehensively costed out (I don't think it was, but the company and the NC will absolutely stand by that it was) then when we vote it down let's offer 1.0B over 3 years to our current contract and put it in payrates alone. Nothing else. Nothing. Else.

The company couldn't possibly have a problem with that, could they? If the true net cost was 1.1B extra and we're offering them a free 100M (to return to the shareholders! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!) then they would be a fiduciary obligation for them to accept that.

Assuming this TA was properly costed out all around that is. Which further assumes they would *never* do any of the worst case things that they *could* do IAW this TA, like massive sick harassment on a scale never before seen, foreign alter egos, 75/76's against a new A380 order for our "partners" AF/KLM, etc.

If the true cost of the pros and cons cost 1.1B extra, from our point of view and theirs, give them one hundred million dollars, or donate it to the charity of their choice, and put the 1.0B into pay rates alone and stick with current book.

What possible problem could they have with that?

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1903703)

I've done some rj replacement and a lot of 88 replacement in 2 years on the 717. I even did DFW not long ago. We weren't popular.
but yeah 18 turns out of Atlanta this month and only 1 was a place I didn't go on the 88, BTR.