No. Only if called in.

The company can afford that. Easily.

But why should they pay it if they don't have to? Would we pay 10k for a Yugo if we can get it for a couple hundred bucks?

Like Carl said...it's far cheaper for Delta to buy a union than to compensate their pilots commensurate with the company's success.

I truly hope we can see through this ****screen, return this POS to sender, and have the patience to see through. We owe it to ourselves, our families, and the profession.

ACA ("Obamacare") Tax Easter Egg, in case you missed it:

In 2018, the ACA institutes a 40% excise tax, sometimes called the "Cadillac tax," on any employer contributions towards healthcare which exceed certain thresholds.

The TA allows the company, in order to avoid paying this tax, to reduce its contributions and pay the difference directly to the pilots. So, you'd theoretically get the dollars in your paycheck to pay the increased premiums, deductibles, and copays.

Sounds OK, right? Not so fast.

That difference gets into your paycheck as normal income. That means it's taxed. So, instead of the company paying taxes on those dollars, you will - and depending where you sit in the tax brackets, it might be roughly the same amount.

This keeps getting better and better.

Cost negitive contract
 

The more I read investor news about the Delta TA, the more troubled I am with it.

This is from a recent article from Baron's:

The total fixed increase, at nearly 15%, is slightly larger than we expected, but the profit-sharing offset is also more meaningful. With the 20% profit-sharing trigger raised to $6 billion for all employees, we calculate some $500 million in potential savings. This should more than offset the fixed increase based on our estimates, and this doesn’t include work-rule changes linked to productivity offsets. We maintain our rating and $57 target price.
Delta, FleetCor Get the Once-Over - Barron's

The yes voters seem to be laser focused on Their pay rates and not the overall contract.

When the SCOTUS ruled that the penalty for not having insurance under obomacare was a "tax", America's fate on this was sealed. Corporations will eventually pawn the cost of premiums off on the workers as either imputed income or in the form of a "pay increase" that will be used to pay those same premiums. It's only a matter of time and those that brought it to us will be long gone. You hit the nail right on the head.

Palette cleansing time. Sorry but the video won't embed.


https://www.youtube.com/embed/NK-T_t...layer_embedded


Carl

Ok, that was a cool story!

I posted this on chit chat. Thoughts


So the union is saying this TA will protect us with "downside protection". If air france pulls down an A380 we don't have to pull down two flights.

There is a huge problem with that argument. I ask you what is Air france/KLM going to pull down to? The smallest plane is a 330.

If you look at the fleet make up for Air France and KLM you see a fleet very wide-body dependent.
I used plane spotter and cross referenced Wikipedia. The numbers are slightly different so I posted both to be as open as possible. (I checked the air france and klm websites and they did not have the fleet broken down by numbers. ( I didn't use Alitalia because they are leaving the alliance).
I didn't paste that well sorry !!!!

From Planespotter - Wikipedia
Air France 777 - 66 - 62 (3 on order)
Air France 747 - 5 - 7 (says to be phased out)
Air France 380 - 10 - 10 (2 on order)
Air France 330 -15 - 19
Air France 340 - 13 - 13 ( to be phased out in 2017)
Air France 767 - 0 - 0
Air France 757 - 0 - 0
Air France 350 - no order data - 18 (on order)

KLM 777 - 25 (1 on order) - 23 (5 on order)
KLM 747 - 25 - 22
KLM 330 - 17 - 16
KLM 340 - 0 - 0
KLM 380 - 0 - 0
KLM 350 - no order data - 7 (on order)

What this shows is how wide-body dependent the fleets of KLM and AF are. If they pull down a 380 what are they going to pull down to? If its a 747, 777, or a 330 its still benefits us measuring with EASK since those are bigger/the same planes. If they pull down to a 350 or 330 it still benefits us because we have similar gauge equipment. At worst its an equal trade for us. The EASK measurement will still help us.

Now in the above scenario if they pull down a 380 to a 777, 787 350 with the block hour ratio what happens. Nothing its the same aircraft. A 380 is equal to a 757 as measure by block hours. Plus if KLM or air france leaves a market we have to pull out a flight to.

We want the EASK metric. It saves our jobs even in a downturn. They have much bigger gauge equipment currently and on order than we do. Or in the case of the 350 similar. The only reason to go to a block hour measurement is to give the company additional scope to cut trans atlantic capacity. (Since in a block hour measurement they are ahead 51.5% according to DTW update on 6-22).

Also a block hour measurement lets delta defer wide body atlantic flying to our competitors. It lets delta use smaller gauge aircraft and gives the highest paying jobs to AF and KLM.

Please tell me if I am wrong but I don't believe this TA give us much if any downside protection

You are correct. EASK's gave us the downside protection, block hours does not. That's why management/DALPA want EASK's gone.

Carl

The federal government does what it does. Different subject for another time.

But why do we assume the burden? This is really bad negotiating when Delta is spending money like drunken sailors on the shareholder.