Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

Total BS. This is about giving away jobs and dividing the pilot group. Nothing more. If they really were concerned about a "small percentage of pilots" you could easily make a limit of once per year, then you're bypassed to the next FO. But that's not what they did, because it wasn't their concern. Their concern was reducing the need for Delta pilots at Delta, while dividing the pilots who remain.

Carl

Originally Posted by Instructordude

I actually like the sick call procedures, keeps people honest, and dont mind the LCA. Why should anybody be payed to sit at home. Pretty sure nobody gets paid to sit on their a$$ at HQ's.

Originally Posted by orvil

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

Originally Posted by Trip7

Sure I'll share why I'm voting yes.

I'm voting yes because

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.

Originally Posted by MtEverest

Regarding "no big deal, United is doing it", we've already had some of their pilots chiming in with real world experience of how bad this sucks. They are saying "DO NOT ALLOW THIS CHANGE TO HAPPEN!" no.

Originally Posted by GoCats67

As a UA guy I can tell you that everybody over hear I have talked to cares.

We already have two of the big reasons you should vote NO on this TA in our contract. Both of which we desperately want to get rid of in our next one!!! If you guys can't hold the line, then we are screwed.

We have the 75% of OE need can be blocked from FO bidding and as a 747 FO it absolutely sucks. Choice Flying trips are blocked every month, leaving less flying trips for senior folks to bid on. So, more senior folks are forced into Bunkie (IRO) slots. Increasing the likelyhood that you will get to go back to the training center for landings, YIPEEEEEEEE!!!! Also build less lines, so you need less FOs, forcing folks on to reserve that should hold a line and denying bids to the next folks in line that want to upgrade. That of course cascades down the rest of the seniority list and like the preverbial snowball going down a hill gains size as it goes, you end up with folks on the outside that can't get in. It is a huge give to the company!!!!

The other part that we already have is the relaxed counting for JV/Scope. If you want to know how bad it is, the best example I can give is the LAX to Germany routes. We used to fly a 777 from LAX to FRA, but we don't anymore. Bad route you say, I laugh in your general direction, it is a great route!!!, just ask Lufthansa. They are currently flying an A380 from LAX-FRA, a 747-800 from LAX-FRA and an A340 from LAX-MUC. Thanks to our brilliant JV/Scope that is perfectly legal even though we don't get any metal on the route. A 757-200 counts the same as an A380!!!! You have got to be kidding me!!!!!!

Again, these are two of the sections that we swallowed a horse pill over in our last agreement because we didn't have a joint contract and needed to get one to move our group along as one. Our last agreement was a hold your nose and vote yes, because it wasn't really voting yes on a contract as much as it was voting yes to end the separation of the two pilot groups! There is no way our current contract would pass on its own merits and I think you would hear that pretty consistently from the UA group. The gives that you have in your TA are very painful, anyone who tries to tell you differently is a either a Bold Faced Liar or completely ignorant. Those are the only two choices.

If you vote yes on this and are in the bottom 3/4 of the seniority list, I think you will see that, despite the pay raises, your W-2 earnings will actually be lower than they would have been once the widebody growth stagnation is fully realized! Pay raises with no growth on the top end are worse than no pay raises but real Widebody growth!

We had a huge number of outside compelling reasons to vote for a less than ideal contract 3 years ago. Those are gone for us and I don't see anyway that we would vote for your TA and I don't see any reason that you should either!

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

I've never met John, but he's spot on. Interesting how Donatelli will call him a liar like the rest of us miscreant line pilots.

Carl

Originally Posted by MtEverest

Slowplay,

Still waiting....

I asked you to post ALL info related to this change. You didn't do that. You posted part of it then told me to go gather the rest on my own. You guys are cherry picking. Please stop.

While you are gathering ALL relevant information I have two other questions I posed to SharpestTool I would like you to answer while waiting for him.

1. Do you now or have you ever worked within the MEC?

2. Talk about the scenarios where the company or their third party medical admin can gain access to all individual pilot medical records under the current contract and under the proposed contract. Show details for both.

Originally Posted by orvil

Nice catch, Carl.

Originally Posted by MtEverest

Carl, are you me in a parallel universe? We just posted at the same time. Sailingfun thinks we are the same person.

Originally Posted by MtEverest

Has anybody heard from Council 1 or 20? Will they provide a proper pro/con paper in the tradition of ALPA that was once trusted with facts?