Airline Pilot Central Forums

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)

Carl Spackler 06-17-2015 05:12 PM


Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1908047)
It's going to be OE tagged hours not all LCA time.

Tagged isn't the words used in the TA, but close enough. What's important is that it's the company's sole discretion to decide what is "tagged" for OE. That could make this particular concession much worse for FO's than we think.


Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1908047)
I don't know the impact honestly.

None of us does. The language allows for abuse only limited by your imagination.


Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1908047)
Those EDITED graphs are in the negotiating committee slides on the dal.alpa.org pages.

Fixed your post.

Carl

satchip 06-17-2015 05:13 PM

Carl, there is downside protection in the new block hour metric. If AF/KLM flies a 380 now we can fly anything, a 777, 330, 76, or 75. If AF/KLM pulls back because of a downturn and puts a 777 or 330 on the route, we can still fly anything because the block hours are the same.

Is this good? Not really because Delta got their ass in a crack because AF/KLM didn't pull back but we did. But it is downside protection in the contract. He is technically right. Blind Squirrel Theory.

Carl Spackler 06-17-2015 05:24 PM


Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1908117)
Never will the DHS have access to your medical records. A verification or medical release only covers a description of the illness.

Totally false. No such protections exist in the TA language.


Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1908117)
2. How far back they can go?
June 1, 2015 on a rolling window. But only for verification.

I've not been able to find that protection in the TA language.

Carl

Carl Spackler 06-17-2015 05:31 PM


Originally Posted by MtEverest (Post 1908150)
Let's say you had surgery on your wrist in 2010. The wrist is giving you problems now causing a sick call as you try to get operational/PT, etc. Since it is related could they require medical records back to the previous surgery on your wrist?

Yes. There's nothing in this TA language that would prevent Delta (or its third party vendor) from demanding you turn over that info.

Carl

Carl Spackler 06-17-2015 05:34 PM


Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1908181)
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.

Poison pill is a great way to put it. Well done.

Carl

forgot to bid 06-17-2015 05:44 PM

So I take it there really won't be any webinars. Because you can capture the feed.

Now at the remaining roadshows one can always use a microphone app or the video app and get the q&a.

I wonder if the MEC was expecting this reception?

Flamer 06-17-2015 05:54 PM


Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1908262)
So I take it there really won't be any webinars. Because you can capture the feed.

Now at the remaining roadshows one can always use a microphone app or the video app and get the q&a.

I wonder if the MEC was expecting this reception?

Just saw the video. Embarrassing is an understatement. ALPA is done. Question is what to do next. It was like amature hour at the mic. Mgt is watching these same videos and laughing.

Carl Spackler 06-17-2015 06:05 PM


Originally Posted by satchip (Post 1908238)
Carl, there is downside protection in the new block hour metric. If AF/KLM flies a 380 now we can fly anything, a 777, 330, 76, or 75.

Not quite accurate. Since our current metric is EASK's, Delta would have to fly two 777/330's or three 757/767's in order to match the A380's EASK's. This TA language removes EASK's in favor of aircraft block hours. So with your same example using the new TA language, one 737-900ER would equal those A380 block hours and Delta would be in full compliance.


Originally Posted by satchip (Post 1908238)
If AF/KLM pulls back because of a downturn and puts a 777 or 330 on the route, we can still fly anything because the block hours are the same.

Words like "can" are NOT contractual protection words. "Shall" and "Must" are contractual protective words. So while your above example is accurate in that Delta can do what you've described, they can also shrink to even lower paying aircraft types in response to the AF/KLM pullback and be in compliance with aircraft block hours. With our current EASK measurement, Delta would be prohibited from flying less EASK's than AF/KLM pulled back to. Delta would have to shrink to similar paying aircraft, or two to three lower paying aircraft in order to match the EASK metric.


Originally Posted by satchip (Post 1908238)
Is this good? Not really because Delta got their ass in a crack because AF/KLM didn't pull back but we did. But it is downside protection in the contract. He is technically right. Blind Squirrel Theory.

I hope I've showed you that it's not correct, but this is what worries me. These kind of legal parsings will allow the MEC administration to claim protections that don't exist because those "protections" require Delta to perform in a manner in which they are not contractually required by language.

Carl

Doug Masters 06-17-2015 06:07 PM

Would love to see a roadshow like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2YVyLLKRHw

Professor 06-17-2015 06:11 PM

Carl. You know what. You are such an expert. You post so much.

It's all yours. You know all. You see all. You really have the best interest of all pilots in mind.

All, please trust Carl with you futures.

I'm done and will be spending my time elsewhere.

Please email the [email protected]
For questions you would like answered.

Good luck with Carl everyone.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:18 PM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands