Details on Delta TA
06-15-2015, 12:23 PM
#9001
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 88
Originally Posted by gzsg
DALPA's dark team has been workng overtime to spin this TA.
Here is the simple fact:
This total TA comes down to an 8% hourly increase and massive concessions.
8% DOS
The 6% 1/1/16 is fully offset by a reduction in profit sharing. A reduction 98% of the Delta pilots opposed.
The 3% in 2017 and 2018 will barely cover cost of living if we are lucky.
Spread the word to every pilot you come in contact with.
Here is the simple fact:
This total TA comes down to an 8% hourly increase and massive concessions.
8% DOS
The 6% 1/1/16 is fully offset by a reduction in profit sharing. A reduction 98% of the Delta pilots opposed.
The 3% in 2017 and 2018 will barely cover cost of living if we are lucky.
Spread the word to every pilot you come in contact with.
Originally Posted by Moondog
Well I am way newer than 07 hire and I find the PS loss a no-go on its face without all the other concessions. Not in this environment, it would be different if the company was hemorrhaging money, but it's not. Now is the time for very strong gains to be put in place. I don't get a vote but if I did I would drop my black stone in the basket!! Just sayin'
Now, I have a long list of issues with this TA and likely voting no but please help me understand why this change in the way we get paid is bad.
06-15-2015, 12:29 PM
#9003
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 558
Originally Posted by Trip7
Sure I'll share why I'm voting yes.
I'm voting yes because I find the overall package entirely reasonable for a short 3 year deal. It provides an industry leading compensation package AND guaranteed mainline growth. As I understand it the fabled contract 2000 had nice shiny pay rates but threw the Delta Express guys under the bus and unleashed a ton of RJs. On the other hand, this contract provides excellent compensation while growing mainline. 50 E190s will provide at least 500 mainline jobs at the best 190 pay rates in the world for a unionized airline. C2012 E190 rates are very very bad. Definite B scale. Also the notion that the E190 will replace the MD88 a wild guess and highly unlikely.
As far as profit sharing, at the end of the day they can cut the pie however they want to. As long as my compensation is more than before, I'm happy. To me, ending up with less compensation just because you're so obsessed with profit sharing is silly. It's simple math. A+B=C. Worry if what's after the equal sign. If it's bigger, mission accomplished. C2015 has a compensation package that can cannot mathematically be exceeded by C2012 in any regard.
The reduction in Profit sharing reduces the raise to barely keeping up with inflation. Not really a raise in my book.. That would be inflation+. You are right they can slice the pie however they want but my piece should be bigger than this offer, especially when the company is making 5B+. This TA barely adds to my bottom line at all and its certainly not worth the gives we are being asked to give.
Sick policy. I'm completely fine with the new rule. I don't call in sick unless I'm actually sick so no problem there. If I somehow exceed a threshold I have no problem getting a doctors note or them opening up my medical records to that particular sick call. The notion that the company will will have access to your entire medical history is false. Another internet rumor that's running wild.
I only call in sick when I am truly sick as well. The wording of this TA appears to allow DHS a huge look into my personal records that should be between my DR. and myself. If there are people who are abusing the policy, punish them, not all the seniority list. They know who they are.
LCA. Worst concession of the contract. I'll let them have it due to the increased pay and mainline growth. With A321, A330, 737-900, and E190 in 2016, then A350 in 2017. The movement will be epic and unprecedented. I believe it's entirely reasonable to give the company some relief here. Greenslips will still flow. United has a similar LCA deal and there is plenty of premium pay there. The reduction of manning by this concession is more than offset by increase of 500 mainline jobs on the 190.
This concession (and why are we even talking about concessions in this environment is beyond me!) is absolutely the worst and most poorly written in this TA. I disagree that GS will continue to flow at the current rate, the number of pilots required will not be offset by the 190 plus up. It will be more than offset resulting in less pilots required. One new fleet will not cover the remaining fleets. This alone should be a no go for any FO.
JV. Very very complex language. Im waiting for the roadshow. It needs further explanation. Especially since VA is carved out and Alitalia is leaving. Since pilots are paid by the block hour and not be EASKs, it is a simpler metric to determine jobs. The internet exaggerations of widebody job losses due to 757s or 737-900ers being sent across the Atlantic make no economic sense whatsoever. Especially with A330s replacing the ERs. The union listed it as a gain for the pilots so I'd like to hear the reasons complete with graphs and charts.
As far as JV goes, ya got me. I have heard both sides and it still confuses me. I do understand that if wide body jets go away it certainly diminishes a lot of upward mobility/career enhancement.
Lastly, I have believe MD and the Negotiators when they say there no room left for gains. Sure we might get another TA quick but it definitely won't be better than this one. Judging by the history of this management team I think it's true. Ask Alaska management!
I'm voting yes because I find the overall package entirely reasonable for a short 3 year deal. It provides an industry leading compensation package AND guaranteed mainline growth. As I understand it the fabled contract 2000 had nice shiny pay rates but threw the Delta Express guys under the bus and unleashed a ton of RJs. On the other hand, this contract provides excellent compensation while growing mainline. 50 E190s will provide at least 500 mainline jobs at the best 190 pay rates in the world for a unionized airline. C2012 E190 rates are very very bad. Definite B scale. Also the notion that the E190 will replace the MD88 a wild guess and highly unlikely.
As far as profit sharing, at the end of the day they can cut the pie however they want to. As long as my compensation is more than before, I'm happy. To me, ending up with less compensation just because you're so obsessed with profit sharing is silly. It's simple math. A+B=C. Worry if what's after the equal sign. If it's bigger, mission accomplished. C2015 has a compensation package that can cannot mathematically be exceeded by C2012 in any regard.
The reduction in Profit sharing reduces the raise to barely keeping up with inflation. Not really a raise in my book.. That would be inflation+. You are right they can slice the pie however they want but my piece should be bigger than this offer, especially when the company is making 5B+. This TA barely adds to my bottom line at all and its certainly not worth the gives we are being asked to give.
Sick policy. I'm completely fine with the new rule. I don't call in sick unless I'm actually sick so no problem there. If I somehow exceed a threshold I have no problem getting a doctors note or them opening up my medical records to that particular sick call. The notion that the company will will have access to your entire medical history is false. Another internet rumor that's running wild.
I only call in sick when I am truly sick as well. The wording of this TA appears to allow DHS a huge look into my personal records that should be between my DR. and myself. If there are people who are abusing the policy, punish them, not all the seniority list. They know who they are.
LCA. Worst concession of the contract. I'll let them have it due to the increased pay and mainline growth. With A321, A330, 737-900, and E190 in 2016, then A350 in 2017. The movement will be epic and unprecedented. I believe it's entirely reasonable to give the company some relief here. Greenslips will still flow. United has a similar LCA deal and there is plenty of premium pay there. The reduction of manning by this concession is more than offset by increase of 500 mainline jobs on the 190.
This concession (and why are we even talking about concessions in this environment is beyond me!) is absolutely the worst and most poorly written in this TA. I disagree that GS will continue to flow at the current rate, the number of pilots required will not be offset by the 190 plus up. It will be more than offset resulting in less pilots required. One new fleet will not cover the remaining fleets. This alone should be a no go for any FO.
JV. Very very complex language. Im waiting for the roadshow. It needs further explanation. Especially since VA is carved out and Alitalia is leaving. Since pilots are paid by the block hour and not be EASKs, it is a simpler metric to determine jobs. The internet exaggerations of widebody job losses due to 757s or 737-900ers being sent across the Atlantic make no economic sense whatsoever. Especially with A330s replacing the ERs. The union listed it as a gain for the pilots so I'd like to hear the reasons complete with graphs and charts.
As far as JV goes, ya got me. I have heard both sides and it still confuses me. I do understand that if wide body jets go away it certainly diminishes a lot of upward mobility/career enhancement.
Lastly, I have believe MD and the Negotiators when they say there no room left for gains. Sure we might get another TA quick but it definitely won't be better than this one. Judging by the history of this management team I think it's true. Ask Alaska management!
Just sayin'
06-15-2015, 12:31 PM
#9004
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by Hornet1
I have been trying to wrap my small brain around the PS change. As I understand it it is a one for one swap of PS for fixed pay at 100%. Meaning in no scenario are we going to be paid less if the TA passes than if it doesn't. If you are saying that our pay raise of 8/0/3/3 is not enough I understand (and agree with you) but exchanging 5.74% max profit sharing for 5.74% fixed pay going forward is not a "loss" of PS it actually locks it in every year going forward.
Now, I have a long list of issues with this TA and likely voting no but please help me understand why this change in the way we get paid is bad.
Now, I have a long list of issues with this TA and likely voting no but please help me understand why this change in the way we get paid is bad.
8033 is a way of saying it ain't 8633 as we know it. I think I did the math the other day and it was like a 5k difference to go 8633 plus c12k ps and 1% more on 401k. But I'll double check that.
06-15-2015, 12:32 PM
#9005
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: Decoupled
Posts: 922
John Malone's Letter To MEC Chairman on FB
John Malone
My letter to MEC chairman:
Captain Donatelli,
I hoped to be able to vote yes on this agreement. Unfortunately, I will be voting no.
... Some of my reasons are as follows:
1) The pay increases are not enough. I appreciate the time value of money, but go get more.
2) Any increase in 76 seat RJ’s is too much.
3) The changes in international scope are too lenient for management.
4) The changes to section 14 are unnecessarily insulting. Further, I do not believe our sick leave is in excess of most other airlines (LUV I believe, not American or UAL). C12 changes were management’s idea and they should be happy with them.
5) Profit Sharing. I am sure after Doug Parker told the AMR employees that DAL’s profit sharing was a bankruptcy contract issue, all DAL management probably latched on. Guess what? We are still living under most of the changes made in Letter 51: Pension-gone, D&S Plan-gutted, vacation-6th week gone and time per day still not fully restored, medical in retirement-gone, 76 seat RJ’s-still increasing, night pay-gone. Fix those items and I will consider relief on profit sharing.
6) Virtual bases? Effect on: manning, reserve coverage/obligation, W/S and G/S impact to the non-virtual base that flying is removed from, and of course no paid moves? Fact is, the company can open/close a base already with no modification needed from our working agreement. Where did this come come? I have no recollection of this on the survey.
7) I would be in favor of counting sick leave as block time flown before awarding a pilot a green slip IF: all time dropped/performed by ALPA duty, LCA duties (jump seat or office), instructor (sim or office days), and of course management time also counted. The same provisions should also apply to GSWC, IA and IAWC.
If this agreement is turned down by the pilots both ALPA and DAL ARE required by the RLA to return to the table and negotiate in good faith. The Act is clear on this issue; a rejected TA does NOT relieve either party of their obligation. Stop telling the pilots we are without options; it is false.
John Malone
767A ATL
My letter to MEC chairman:
Captain Donatelli,
I hoped to be able to vote yes on this agreement. Unfortunately, I will be voting no.
... Some of my reasons are as follows:
1) The pay increases are not enough. I appreciate the time value of money, but go get more.
2) Any increase in 76 seat RJ’s is too much.
3) The changes in international scope are too lenient for management.
4) The changes to section 14 are unnecessarily insulting. Further, I do not believe our sick leave is in excess of most other airlines (LUV I believe, not American or UAL). C12 changes were management’s idea and they should be happy with them.
5) Profit Sharing. I am sure after Doug Parker told the AMR employees that DAL’s profit sharing was a bankruptcy contract issue, all DAL management probably latched on. Guess what? We are still living under most of the changes made in Letter 51: Pension-gone, D&S Plan-gutted, vacation-6th week gone and time per day still not fully restored, medical in retirement-gone, 76 seat RJ’s-still increasing, night pay-gone. Fix those items and I will consider relief on profit sharing.
6) Virtual bases? Effect on: manning, reserve coverage/obligation, W/S and G/S impact to the non-virtual base that flying is removed from, and of course no paid moves? Fact is, the company can open/close a base already with no modification needed from our working agreement. Where did this come come? I have no recollection of this on the survey.
7) I would be in favor of counting sick leave as block time flown before awarding a pilot a green slip IF: all time dropped/performed by ALPA duty, LCA duties (jump seat or office), instructor (sim or office days), and of course management time also counted. The same provisions should also apply to GSWC, IA and IAWC.
If this agreement is turned down by the pilots both ALPA and DAL ARE required by the RLA to return to the table and negotiate in good faith. The Act is clear on this issue; a rejected TA does NOT relieve either party of their obligation. Stop telling the pilots we are without options; it is false.
John Malone
767A ATL
06-15-2015, 12:32 PM
#9006
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by Moondog
It is very hard for me to believe that this is the best the company has to offer. They are making 5B+ a year and this all they think of us. I was not here during the BK times but I have friends who were and I know the concessions that were made to help the company. It's time for the company to pony up now, in the good times, to the group that gave the most.
Just sayin'
Just sayin'
06-15-2015, 12:35 PM
#9007
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 558
Originally Posted by Hornet1
I have been trying to wrap my small brain around the PS change. As I understand it it is a one for one swap of PS for fixed pay at 100%. Meaning in no scenario are we going to be paid less if the TA passes than if it doesn't. If you are saying that our pay raise of 8/0/3/3 is not enough I understand (and agree with you) but exchanging 5.74% max profit sharing for 5.74% fixed pay going forward is not a "loss" of PS it actually locks it in every year going forward.
Now, I have a long list of issues with this TA and likely voting no but please help me understand why this change in the way we get paid is bad.
Now, I have a long list of issues with this TA and likely voting no but please help me understand why this change in the way we get paid is bad.
Last edited by Moondog; 06-15-2015 at 12:38 PM. Reason: Needed Editing
06-15-2015, 12:49 PM
#9009
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 88
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
If you run the numbers it is a raise, even though the Bloomberg types are saying the ps changes mean it saves the company money.
8033 is a way of saying it ain't 8633 as we know it. I think I did the math the other day and it was like a 5k difference to go 8633 plus c12k ps and 1% more on 401k. But I'll double check that.
8033 is a way of saying it ain't 8633 as we know it. I think I did the math the other day and it was like a 5k difference to go 8633 plus c12k ps and 1% more on 401k. But I'll double check that.
06-15-2015, 12:51 PM
#9010
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,412
Originally Posted by Moondog
So lets assume it is a one for one swap. The remaining portion of the raise barely keeps up with inflation going forward. Not to mention that you are 'funding' your own raise. The company is not coming off anything in the era of 5B+ profits. That's my biggest beef with the pay. If they want to lower PS, OK, but come up with some cash for it. Like 10/8/6/6 maybe. At least that is a real raise with inflation factored in.
Secondly the reduction of profit sharing self funds 6%. So a 21% raise over 3 years is truly a 15% raise. Not a home run but that's a decent chunk of change. And we'll be back to the table in 2018, 2 years before AA's CURRENT deal expires
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
