I think he's saying this doesn't protect us from them putting a 380 against our 757. Which is of course true.

Its funny that so much of the "protection" from this is found in projected/planned aircraft orders and current fleet plans. We can in no way ever use that as protection. We have to look at this in its worst case scenarios. They could sign a huge 380 order the day after we ratify this, or any day after that, and DAL would stand to lose mass quantities of marketshare. We could put mostly ER's on EU flying for the better part of 2 decades as AF/KLM only up-gauged and there wouldn't be a thing we could do about it. They could get 2/3 to perhaps 3/4 the EASK's and we'd just have to eat it.

Its also being sold as downside protection, but the opposite is true. If there was a huge demand drop, DL/AF/KLM could significantly reduce by further upgauging their AC while downgrading ours even while both pulled down. That would leave DL pulling down the majority of the seats. That's stupid fr us to do in a "metal neutral" agreement.

And, once again, WTH is up with that little suitcase nuke that allows the MEC chairman to single handedly allow a foreign alter ego with the DL name in DL paint staffed with cut throat foreign pilots? Is that even a legal line item WRT the ALPA policy manual? Can a potentially massive change like that happen with one man's signature? Or would they "interpret" the TA passage to be an evergreen consent for unlimited foreign alter ego carnage to our careers?

Some are trying to sell this as a positive claiming it adds the protection of the MEC chairman as a bulwark against rogue company actions, but that's only true if our current contract would permit the company to unilaterally create Delta branded foreign alter egos. There is no way that is the case or they would have done it long ago.

So why is this POS clause in there, and why are some guys intentionally misrepresenting it to get it to pass? This is the biggest deal in the entire TA and it was completely glossed over by the NC's little bullet points.

 

[QUOTE=Bananie;1903971]Here is how I see it:

For every $21,500 I get in pay, lose from 0-5700 in profit sharing
Sick leave is a paperwork hassle if you use a lot of sick leave. If you don't use a lot of sick leave, no change. This hysteria about medical records is stupid, is Delta going to sell your medical records to the Russian mafia?
RJ Scope is better, less RJ's more mainline
AF/KLM cuts out Heathrow from the ratio which is good because that's where the money is. The rest is just protecting where we are. Seriously, does anyone truly think a business man would tolerate going across the Atlantic in a 737 or baby bus. Get real. In fact our flying across the atlantic is growing just not enough for the old ratio.
OE trip drop changes are bad for those guys that get them, but it's difficult to defend a practice designed to pay people to sit at home
We give 1 hour on TLV and we get better rotations from the RCC
Vacation goes up by :15 minutes
DC plan goes up by 1%
A bunch of other small gains



"We get better rotations from the RCC."


Do you really believe that? A computer builds the rotations based on inputs. Anytime the rotations get worse we are told that "We have to minimize credit."

So we are going to add an hour to the TLV yet get better rotations?

So they have not been trying to build better rotations until now or are they going to apply RCC inputs that increase credit?

I am very skeptical about this.

Scoop

 

Take off the blinders and you will.

Denny

 

Here it is,


Fun with numbers...OE Recovery.
So there are at least 37 7ER new hire FOs finishing sim training in the month of June. The TA states 75 projected block hours for each new hire wide body FO to finish OE/TOE. So we have 2,775 hours there...first 25% awarded to the lucky senior pilots leaves 2,081ish hours not awarded for OE recovery. That times the new rate of $167 for a 12 yr FO (the guys that usually get check airman trips) equals $347,568 money saved by the company for that month. A full year of training gets us $4,170,825 saved....and that's just on the ER!!! How was my math? Plus, now you have extra guys sitting around on reserve so you don't have to give out green slips!! Double score for the company!Supporting docs attached.

 

Capacity vs Block Hours:
Measuring capacity (EASK Equivalent Seat Kilometers) to account for flying share hurts us when JV capacity is reduced. For every AF A380 cut, Delta cut nearly three (2.8) 767ERs to keep the percentage even.
But wait, not only has the JV cut capacity across the Atlantic, but Delta is flying less than the required share of the reduced flying. In short we got hit with a double whammy.

As the European economy rebounds we are looking much better. With added capacity the existing agreement disproportionately favors Delta pilots. For every AF A380 route added, Delta must add nearly three (2.8) 767ER or two A330 routes to maintain the same share. With Delta averaging less than our minimum share, the flying increase to match must be even larger. We stand to gain exponential international flying.
By switching to Aircraft Block Hours now we will fail to capture that increase but lock in the disproportionate hit we have taken so far.

Cheers
George

 

I just got off the phone (regarding the medical stuff) with the SEA CA Rep who is also on the Government Affairs Committee. He said one additional reason to not pass this sick leave change is because the wording is counter to the arguments the GAC is using to fight the FAA's proposed changes to their fit to fly process after the German Wings incident. He sent me these links if interested:



https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=83005


http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/media/Pilot%20Fitness%20ARC%20Charter.pdf


http://www.nycaviation.com/2015/05/pilot-fitness-aviation-rulemaking-committee-name-proves-wrong-philosophy/#.VXI8BOdQCGM


http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20150528/NEWS06/150529847/trade-group-member-to-co-chair-faa-pilot-fitness-committee

 

I'm not going to accuse anyone here of lying as that hinders a healthy debate, but I will say that DAPLA grossly misrepresented their "No Deal is Better Than a Bad Deal" banner not long ago.

According to Donatellis words, I don't think "No Deal" was even in their thought process.

His "fired all the bullets", "extracted every penny" and "if don't accept this deal" rhetoric clearly shows that "NO Deal" was ever an option in their thinking.

No plan for what to do should the MEC had done it's job and sent this back.

Now this "expedited negotiation, expedited vote" runaway train is barreling down the tracks and the only emergency brake is our NO votes.

 

I'll come out of APC retirement to provide a real world example of the exact kind of verbiage you can expect:

Background: Over a year go I got hurt in an OJI. Surgery was required and I was out for about 11 months. Delta uses a company called ESIS to handle their worker's compensation claims. The claims administrators have been good. However in one of the early conversations I was asked if I'd be willing to work with a "nurse case manager". I asked what that was and got an explanation. I was okay with it. A few days later the nurse case manager calls, we have a nice conversation about the service she can provide and says "I'll send you some forms to sign".

The forms arrived and I read them. I refused to sign. The next paragraphs are taken verbatim from those forms. Ask yourself if you'd be willing to sign these.

"I, the undersigned, do hereby authorize any physician or other medical or mental health professional, hospital, or other medical-related facility, school or vocational program to provide Coventry Health Care Workers Compensation, Inc. and its affiliates and subsidiaries ("Coventry") and its authorized representatives Private Health Information ("PHI") verbally or in writing concerning medical advice, care, treatment, or services provided to me. PHI means any and all records, reports, or other medical information, bills and referral letters whether generated by myself, Coventry, or a third party. PHI includes information relating to mental illness, use of drugs, use of alcohol, or diagnosis of AIDS/HIV, for the purpose of providing services to me in connection with my worker's compensation, disability, or auto claim, or other claim for benefits or coverage. I understand that by signing this release I may be waiving certain rights in accordance with state and/or federal laws that allow for waiver of those rights."

Skipping ahead...

"By signing below I give my permission to disclose my health information to Coventry and its representatives. I understand that my health information may be transmitted by facsimile, electronic mail, or regular mail. I further understand that PHI disclosed pursuant to this authorization may be redisclosed by Coventry and may no longer be protected from disclosure to others by state and/or federal law. I completely release Coventry from any and all liability which may result or could result from the appropriate release of such information in accordance with state and or federal laws."

That ALPA would negotiate away protections provided by HIPAA is absolutely astounding to me.

 

Good stuff!! Thanks for calling JC, I flew with him right after the MEC sent C'12 out. He wasn't happy then and why I'll bet he ran for rep. With that said, I don't know how he voted on C'12.

Ferd

PS Heyyyyyyyyyy........is that a U of AZ hat

No Piddy for da Kitty

 

Thanks for that WP. All I can say is WOW!

Denny