Airline Pilot Central Forums - Details on Delta TA

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)

- - Details on Delta TA (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/88532-details-delta-ta.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1907480)

My take is that CS focused only on the profit sharing piece.

The company asked the union to abdicate their responsibility to us and the union agreed to do that. That wasn't baked into the credit Suisse article.

Just wondering why the negotiating committee didn't walk away from the table.

Did somebody get paid?

The problem with the MEC administration's corrupt behavior is that it leaves open this question. Wouldn't it be nice if the administration's behavior was so honest, that nobody could even consider getting paid as a possibility?

The worst part is, there's nothing illegal about it.

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1907670)

Release specifically covers the sick incident itself. It is not a general release of you medical records.

If you want another example of the half-truths you're going to get at these DALPA road shows, this is it. If the records you send are deemed insufficient, more records BEYOND your sick incident can be demanded at the sole discretion of the vendor that Delta designates. It's in the TA language.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1907670)

We asked the company and the answer is DHS. Not a third party.

Meaningless. The actual TA language allows for ANYONE designated by Delta.

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1907464)

Also good points and nobody is going to argue with you (ok I'm not) that language needs to be ironclad.

Please keep engaged and hopefully we can get contract language solidified as well.

As Harwood used to say all the time here, Hope isn't a strategy.

THIS is the language we are being URGED to vote YES on. Not "solidified" language, this language. This EXACT language. The only way to get any troublesome language "solidified" is to vote NO and renegotiate.

So since "Professor" is so troubled by some of this language, maybe he'll vote NO so we can renegotiate the problem areas? :rolleyes:

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1907683)

DHS is dr. F. His designer would be a delta person. No third party.

Complete falsehood. Not in the TA language.

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1907687)

There are no Mac truck sized holes. Seriously. It's just a change in verification process and times.

Absolutely false.

Carl

I've been lurking too long...

Hired at the beginning of '87, so I've been around awhile. When I got word the TA was out, I was excited, but a little apprehensive. To say that I was underwhelmed by the 2015 TA is an understatement. I've voted yes and no to previous TA's...yes on C2012. But for TA 2015, I'm giving it a solid THUMBS DOWN and will be voting NO WAY TA!

Not all wide body Capts are just looking at the $$...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1907688)

Your answers.

1) Yes. When you're in the medical release window (24 days in 365, 56 in 3 years)

Correct. That's the actual TA language.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1907688)

2). The medical release itself is unchanged from the current contract. It is limited to the specific sick occurrence, and not a general release of your medical records

Totally false. Demanding more info beyond your sick occurrence is at the sole discretion of whoever Delta designates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1907688)

3)you won't get paid for the sick call

That's the minimum. There's also nothing that would prevent Delta from pursuing termination for wrongful absence...except being represented by DALPA. :rolleyes:

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by MtEverest (Post 1908150)

If we agree to new language in the PWA that requires more and we don't want to provide more then it becomes a disciplinary situation. This should not be understated.

Its more than that though. The TA significantly lowers the threshold where we are required to verify. Not only is it a reduction from 100 to 75 to 80ish hours (equivalent) but the removal of the ability to pre-verify prior to the threshold makes this a double whammy.

Now we will have to verify way sooner and way more often. As for compliance, its not just a matter of you are required to verify and you just say "nah nanny boo boo" and refuse to verify, just like refusing to show for a trip, etc. Its actually worse than that. You can make your best effort to verify, but if you can't find a doctor to "verify" you indeed had an upset stomach/headache/nausea/squirts/etc 3 days ago, which is completely unverifiable in the first place, then you can't verify, even if you try to verify.

So if you've already used your days for the rolling time period and you get something that you don't think can be verified, you better just drag yourself into work and tough it out because we're really trying to save money here. :(

Right or wrong, we all knew they were coming after sick useage. But this particular concession is deep and dangerous and is a flat out safety issue.

Are there abusers out there? I don't know, but supposedly the "big data" white paper crowd thinks so. OK, fine, perhaps there are some abusers. This is a drastic over reach that 100% will result in ether pilots now flying sick for "grey area" illnesses they don't feel can be easily verified, or pilots ending up having to fight for their jobs because they couldn't verify something that isn't verifiable in the first place. Or both. Almost definately both.

And no "records check" is going to change that in the slightest.

This new policy will reduce sick usage, and will increase pilots flying sick while at the same time increasing disciplinary action against pilots, potential abusers and non abusers alike.

The rolling lookback and loss of ability to pre-verify were deep, radically over reaching concessions. Outside of bankruptcy. In the best negotiating climate in the history of the industry.

I get that we're suppose to value out the entire agreement and weigh everything and all that. But a poison pill is a poison pill. Some things are just not for sale. At any price.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyallnite (Post 1907705)

Not exactly how it's written in the TA.

1) The medical release window could be anytime the DHS is unable to make a determination based on the information you've provided. Even if you haven't met the threshold. That's subjective, and totally up to them.

2) The release can then be expanded, again totally subjective and solely at the DHS discretion, to include an exam by a company picked doctor, and the Vice President of Flight Operations. No doctor will take the time to redact impertinent health information from the results of the written release. That includes social history, medications, health issues, and as soon as the FAA releases the new regs, your mental health records. Good luck getting any of that redacted.

Again, "or his designee" could be anyone. It most certainly could be a third party. I'm sorry, but "The company told us" is not a contractual obligation.

Most major corporations, S&P500 we're talking, use third party verification. Time Warner, AT&T, and so on. We are already using it for a large portion of our own employees. What in this TA prevents that from happening? The answer: Nothing. We agree to allow an unspecified 'designee' to evaluate our health and our sick leave usage.

Bump!

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1908181)

+1...my first +1 ever!