|
Awesome!!
And what happens when we reject this TA? No concessions and increasing profit sharing. Management needs this deal much more than we do. Let's get a fair deal that is a win for the Delta pilots and Delta management. |
I have no dog in this fight as well but this seems like a BIIIIIIIGGGGGG POS! The sick leave policy scares the hell out of me. They are robbing Peter to pay Paul in the pay raise category. I really don't see any real gains in this TA. For all of you DAL pilots and the rest of us industry pukes please vote no.
|
The email needs to add to the LCA trip pull fiasco.
It won't just effect the pilots who attempt to bid with LCA, more importantly, it will effect EVERY FO on the list because an equal number of pilots who currently hold a line will now be on reserve as the amount of flying to award is reduced by 75% of the trips the LCA bid. How many LCA do we have total at Delta? Multiply that by .75 and you have the total number of FO's who currently hold lines who will be on reserve under C2015. |
Originally Posted by RockyBoy
(Post 1904737)
The email needs to add to the LCA trip pull fiasco.
It won't just effect the pilots who attempt to bid with LCA, more importantly, it will effect EVERY FO on the list because an equal number of pilots who currently hold a line will now be on reserve as the amount of flying to award is reduced by 75% of the trips the LCA bid. How many LCA do we have total at Delta? Multiply that by .75 and you have the total number of FO's who currently hold lines who will be on reserve under C2015. From what I understand this is just the start. Scoop |
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 1904743)
From what I understand this is just the start.
Scoop Make sure they're prepared with facts as they grab the torches and pitchforks. JMO. |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1904751)
If you guys want to be successful, tell your e-mail writers to ensure they stay fact based. Example: B737-900 ETOPS to Europe? Please. Also, if changing to block hours is a "land grab", what happens when Alitalia's EASK are pulled out of the JV next year versus what will happen under a block hour regimen? What happens as we add A330-300 to replace 7ER flying under the same premise?
Make sure they're prepared with facts as they grab the torches and pitchforks. JMO. Slow, I agree 100% with you. The more objective and fact based the better for everyone. That is why I am so disappointed in the MEC. I have heard a few guys have said "We felt the Pilots should have a vote on this." Well that would be great if they presented both the good and the bad, let the No voters provide counterpoints at the road shows etc. In other words share information, answer questions, and stop selling it like a bunch of used car salesmen. I would have a lot more respect for DALPA if they just said something like: Here it is guys, it has some good thing, some bad things, vote what you think is best. Instead we get - This is awesome if you don't vote yes the evil NMB will come in the night and take your first born type of tactics. My 2 cents - Scoop OBTW - I voted yes open C2012 but will be voting NO shortly. |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1904751)
If you guys want to be successful, tell your e-mail writers to ensure they stay fact based. Example: B737-900 ETOPS to Europe? Please. Also, if changing to block hours is a "land grab", what happens when Alitalia's EASK are pulled out of the JV next year versus what will happen under a block hour regimen? What happens as we add A330-300 to replace 7ER flying under the same premise?
Make sure they're prepared with facts as they grab the torches and pitchforks. JMO. There is NO downside to keeping our EASK language! NONE! Stop trying to spin it as if we have to maintain a 50% ratio, that is a MINIMUM. Heck, we could fly 100% of our JV EASK! There is NOTHING that says we can -only- fly 50%, except Richard wants us to fly as little as possible, witness the JV Grievance we just WON! |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1904751)
If you guys want to be successful, tell your e-mail writers to ensure they stay fact based. Example: B737-900 ETOPS to Europe? Please.
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1904751)
Also, if changing to block hours is a "land grab", what happens when Alitalia's EASK are pulled out of the JV next year versus what will happen under a block hour regimen?
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1904751)
What happens as we add A330-300 to replace 7ER flying under the same premise?
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1904751)
Make sure they're prepared with facts as they grab the torches and pitchforks. JMO.
Carl |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1904751)
If you guys want to be successful, tell your e-mail writers to ensure they stay fact based. Example: B737-900 ETOPS to Europe? Please. Also, if changing to block hours is a "land grab", what happens when Alitalia's EASK are pulled out of the JV next year versus what will happen under a block hour regimen? What happens as we add A330-300 to replace 7ER flying under the same premise?
Make sure they're prepared with facts as they grab the torches and pitchforks. JMO. |
Originally Posted by gzsg
(Post 1904774)
Give us the facts here. Does switching to block hours put management back into compliance immediately?
Carl |
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 1904720)
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif
Guys, Here is a cut and paste of an E-mail chain that is going around mainly in LAX. If we can duplicate this movement in other bases we can counter the DLAPA spin machine and defeat this TA. The MEC vote was 11-8. It was clearly a very weak TA. I removed the individual Pilot names because I do not have permission to post them. Scoop Ladies and Gentlemen, For some of you, I am reaching out to you for the very first time. This is an historic time for us all, and it behooves us to fully understand all of the details of this TA. I personally know many of you are very upset about this TA and feel that it falls way short. We will soon have the opportunity to tell the MEC how we feel about it. Our goal is to defeat this TA overwhelmingly during the MEMRAT phase and send a strong message to DAL management that we expect and are ready to negotiate for a much better contract. Following a TA defeat we will consider a recall of our LAX representatives. Many of us expressed our displeasure with the TA directly to our elected reps prior to the MEC voting on it, and it is now apparent that they ignored our emails, texts, and phone calls by voting for the TA. We can accomplish a recall by building an electronic network of concerned LAX pilots. Everyone receiving this email is being asked to confirm they would like to proceed with a possible recall of the LAX LEC. Also, please discuss during debrief times the information presented regarding the TA and possible recall. Ask your CAPT or FO if they are interested in being added to our list. We can only proceed if we have enough support. Before we cast votes in the MEMRAT phase of the TA, please consider the following information. Remember, if the TA is defeated, there are no changes to the contract we enjoy now. Concessions: -AF/KLM/AZ Joint Venture Scope: If this TA passes, we will only fly 50% of the BLOCK HOURS in our trans-atlantic agreement, instead of 50% of the SEAT KILOMETERS. In other words, Delta could fly one 757/767 or A330 while AF is flying their A380, where presently we would have to fly four 757s or nearly three 767s or two A330s on the same route to match the A380’s capacity! Do we like wide body flying? This is the largest grab at Delta Mainline flying since the invention of the regional jet. Is there a chance the new 737-900ER order is to replace some aging 767s operated on overseas routes? You bet there is, and yes the -900’s are ETOPS capable. -RJ Scope: If the TA passes, DCI will be allowed 25 more 76-seat rjs to fly around, and we get up to 50 98-seat EMB-190s. Also, the present restrictions on rj flying (miles per route, hub-to-hub, and specific departure/arrival locations) will all disappear. And the 50-seat rj will NOT go away… the TA calls for a reduction not in 50-seat jets, but a reduction in annual block hours flown by 50-seaters, and only after the company gets their 70-76-seater. -Other JV scope concessions: If the TA passes, the look-back period for compliance on the JV is changed from 3 years down to 1. Could management want this to cover their past poor practices? They have not done the contractually required flying for the last 4 years and by changing this to a 1 year look-back, they get a fresh start and we get no future grievance check. -Sick leave: If this TA passes, the sick year changes from 1 June - 31 May to a rolling 365-day window. More onerous is the change in verification triggers. Our present 100-hour trigger for having to verify a sickness will now be split into two: one of them (“Verification Threshold) will be 15 missed work days, and the other (“Medical Release Threshold”) will be 24 or more work days missed in a one year rolling window or 56 work days missed in a three year rolling window! It gets better - if the TA passes, the “certificate” we have to provide proving our illness must include a description of the illness and an estimate return to work date instead of just a “general description of illness” (and no date). If this wasn’t enough, please note the final detail: in the TA, our certificate of illness verification no longer goes to the CPO, it goes to the Director - Health Services, which is an AME designated by the company. Does this sound like an acceptable “improvement” in our work rules?? -OE Trips: If the TA passes, FOs who attempt to bid with LCA in the hopes they will get the trip bought off them will be sorry, as this provision is being changed. Instead of getting those PBS-awarded trips and watching them get bought off our line (plenty of that to happen for sure with so many new hires and retirements happening…) we will simply not be awarded the trip at all. Management will be withholding 75% of all the block hours bid by LCA and designating them for OE trips and not releasing them into the PBS award pool. So, we might get a trip with a LCA but it most certainly will not result in a trip buy. Another example of an industry leading set of work rules?? -Profit Sharing: We are basically funding our own pilot raise, again, just like C2012. Our new raise now looks like 8/0/3/3 when you back out the 6% reduction in profit sharing. At least three major Wall Street firms have already publicly estimated that our profit sharing concessions more than pay for our first two years of pay rate increases. If the TA passes, the trigger will change to the lower amount, all employee groups will see a reduction in profit sharing, and the chances of the trigger returning to where it is now are nil. To put the profit sharing in perspective, think about this example (not improbable by any stretch): In the current contract, a PTIX of $6 billion will result in $950,000,000 in total profit sharing payouts. If the TA passes, a PTIX of $6 billion will result in $600,000,000 in total profit sharing payout. The trigger in the TA removes $350,000,000, almost 37% of the money!! That’s our money, the gate agent’s money, the flight attendant’s money. Do we have the right to take away their profit sharing, simply to fund a pay raise? Do we think the company is suddenly NOT going to make handsome profits year over year and thus need this new lower trigger to ensure we get a raise? We already gave away 33 percent of profit sharing in C2012, do we really want to give away more? Defeat the TA and enjoy large profit sharing checks in Feb 2016, 2017, and beyond. Ask yourself why on earth should we take concessions on this TA at the time when our airline made the largest profit by any airline ever in the history of aviation and when the company has announced $6 Billion in givebacks to DAL shareholders. Some pilots may be afraid of change, or of turning this TA down. There may be a fear of “what next?” if this TA is voted down. Clearly, there is the obvious lack of an instantaneous pay bump but there should be no fear in loss of compensation - we have already proven that “retro pay” happens - we got it in 2001, other pilot groups have done the same since. The fear is really the concessions and how these concessions will further degrade our quality of life, our scope, our work rules. Are these concessions not fearsome in their own light? Are we really going to sell what little is left of our work rules and dignity for a little compensation? Clearly, there is much to fear if this TA passes. Please don’t fear Delta management. They need this TA more than we do. Below is a list of pilots that are upset or against the TA. Many on this list want to know why Tim Heck and Dan Riesgo voted yes to this TA. The majority of pilots on this list want them recalled. If you know more people that would like to join us and be included in this list, please have them email me with their name and position/base/equipment. If you would like your name removed from this list please contact me and I will remove you. I don’t mean to offend anyone, I simply want us all to have the facts. If I spelled your name wrong, I sincerely apologize. Thank you for your time, for your engagement, and for your support. FO-SEA-73N FO-LAX-73N CA-LAX-73N CA-LAX-73N CA-NYC-717 CA-LAX-73N CA-LAX-73N CA-LAX-ER CA-LAX-73N CLAXFO-DTW-744 CA-LAX-73N CA-LAX-7ER CA-LAX-73N FO-LAX-ER CA-LAX-73N FO-LAX-ER FO-LAX-73N CA-LAX-73N CA-LAX-7ER FO-LAX-7ER CA-LAX-73N FO-LAX-73N FO-LAX-73N CA-LAX-73N FO-LAX-73N CA-LAX-73N CA-LAX-73N CA-LAX-73N CA-LAX-ER FO-LAX-73N FO-LAX-ER CA-LAX-ER CA-LAX-73N CA-LAX-ER CA-LAX-73N CA-SEA-73N CA-LAX-73N FO-NYC-73N CA-LAX-73N FO-LAX-73N CA-LAX-73N CA-LAX-73N CA-LAX-73N FO-LAX-73N FO-LAX-73N CA-SEA-73N CA-LAX-73N CA-LAX-73N CA-LAX-73N FO-LAX-7ER CA-LAX-73N CA-LAX-7ER CA-LAX-73N CA-LAX-73N CA-LAX-73N CA-LAX-73N CA-LAX-73N FO-LAX-73N CA-LAX-73N FO-LAX-73N CA-LAX-73N CA-LAX-7ER FO-LAX-73N CA-LAX-73N FO-LAX-7ER FO-LAX-7ER I'm a LAX based FO. Haven't seen this, but want in. I also want to see the reps recalled...this is unacceptable! How do I get in? |
Here's a Fact I want to know Slowplay:
WHO asked to change from EASK's to Block Hours? Was this a DALPA requested change, or did Management want this? Just tell us WHO's idea this was and that will tell us WHO will benefit, and THAT is a FACT, Jack. |
Originally Posted by gzsg
(Post 1904774)
Give us the facts here. Does switching to block hours put management back into compliance immediately?
And SEA is still not a hub. Really? |
Originally Posted by Timbo
(Post 1904782)
Here's a Fact I want to know Slowplay:
WHO asked to change from EASK's to Block Hours? Was this a DALPA requested change, or did Management want this? Just tell us WHO's idea this was and that will tell us WHO will benefit, and THAT is a FACT, Jack. Carl |
Originally Posted by GivemeVSP
(Post 1904781)
I'm a LAX based FO. Haven't seen this, but want in. I also want to see the reps recalled...this is unacceptable! How do I get in?
Just received permission from Steve to release his information. If you are interested in joining this movement here is the contact information: Steve Goode LAX 73N B [email protected] |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1904785)
It had to be management that asked for this change because it's nowhere in our contract opener that the MEC administration released to us.
Carl Airline Contract Negotiations 101: If the Company wants something, you can pretty much bet it's NOT because it's good for the Pilots! |
Originally Posted by Timbo
(Post 1904782)
Here's a Fact I want to know Slowplay:
WHO asked to change from EASK's to Block Hours? Was this a DALPA requested change, or did Management want this? Just tell us WHO's idea this was and that will tell us WHO will benefit, and THAT is a FACT, Jack. |
Originally Posted by Oberon
(Post 1904803)
According to the TA Comparison Brief on the MEC website that was an ALPA request. It doesn't go into any detail as to why that would be the case.
Carl |
I would add something to the paragraph that discusses Sick Leave.
The loss of Voluntary Verification, Section 14.F.2, under our current PWA is a significant change and in my opinion, punitive. Currently, if I'm out for a couple of weeks due to a hernia procedure, sprained ankle, or something similar, I can get a doctor's note for Voluntary Verification and preserve my 100 hours of Unverified Sick Leave. Under this TA, I cannot provide Voluntary Verification and the hernia, sprained ankle, etc. would count against my 15 days of Unverified Sick Leave. This means it is far more likely that I'll use my 15 days of Unverified Sick Leave under this TA. The result will be that any future minor illness in the subsequent 365 day window, such as a cold, will require me to go to a doctor for Verification. So, it is not just a reduction of Unverified Sick Leave from 100 hours to 15 days/80ish hours, it is also a loss of the ability to use Voluntary Sick Verification. This will undoubtedly put much more of the pilot group on a doctor's note program - seems punitive to me. |
Originally Posted by jobagodonuts
(Post 1904864)
I would add something to the paragraph that discusses Sick Leave.
The loss of Voluntary Verification, Section 14.F.2, under our current PWA is a significant change and in my opinion, punitive. Currently, if I'm out for a couple of weeks due to a hernia procedure, sprained ankle, or something similar, I can get a doctor's note for Voluntary Verification and preserve my 100 hours of Unverified Sick Leave. Under this TA, I cannot provide Voluntary Verification and the hernia, sprained ankle, etc. would count against my 15 days of Unverified Sick Leave. This means it is far more likely that I'll use my 15 days of Unverified Sick Leave under this TA. The result will be that any future minor illness in the subsequent 365 day window, such as a cold, will require me to go to a doctor for Verification. So, it is not just a reduction of Unverified Sick Leave from 100 hours to 15 days/80ish hours, it is also a loss of the ability to use Voluntary Sick Verification. This will undoubtedly put much more of the pilot group on a doctor's note program - seems punitive to me. |
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 1904799)
Just received permission from Steve to release his information.
If you are interested in joining this movement here is the contact information: Steve Goode LAX 73N B [email protected] |
LAX and SLC Reps need to go!
I have yet to meet one pilot who is happy with the way their LAX or SLC REPS voted in favor of the TA. All feel it is a failure to represent their wishes that they conveyed via the survey, emails and phone calls.
|
I realize there all always more people who say they'll vote no than actually do, but the current tide of opinion seems unprecedented. I find it very hard to believe my LAX reps recieved a flood of calls calling for a yes vote.
|
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 1904799)
Just received permission from Steve to release his information.
If you are interested in joining this movement here is the contact information: Steve Goode LAX 73N B [email protected] Thanks! I will be contacting him shortly. |
Originally Posted by JustMyOpinion
(Post 1904942)
I have yet to meet one pilot who is happy with the way their LAX or SLC REPS voted in favor of the TA. All feel it is a failure to represent their wishes that they conveyed via the survey, emails and phone calls.
|
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1904785)
It had to be management that asked for this change because it's nowhere in our contract opener that the MEC administration released to us.
Carl This speaks to a massive failure of the strategic planning guys. They tried to include in the survey every single concession the company might want. They knew full well the survey would never be released. As long as every possible concession was addressed on the survey, they could politically claim such-and-such concession wasn't "a priority" for pilots to retain. They neglected to anticipate the company's moves. They were caught flat-footed, and are scrambling to recover. A total failure by Harwood. He'll try to cover his incompetence by cramming this down our throats. |
Could not agree more! It is a very small group of insiders that have taken over the process and are not working for the best interests of the Delta pilots. If pilots in LAX and SLC can put together a grass roots effort to rid ourselves of those who do not represent the pilots the balance of power will change and this TA and future give backs could be stopped. With today's social media, email, and smart phones this should not be that hard to accomplish. The majority feel not represented...we have the power...we just need to use it.
|
Originally Posted by Oberon
(Post 1904803)
According to the TA Comparison Brief on the MEC website that was an ALPA request. It doesn't go into any detail as to why that would be the case.
|
Originally Posted by JustMyOpinion
(Post 1904942)
I have yet to meet one pilot who is happy with the way their LAX or SLC REPS voted in favor of the TA. All feel it is a failure to represent their wishes that they conveyed via the survey, emails and phone calls.
Nothing will get this Yes C2012 voter to vote yes on C2015. I don't care what their reasoning was for voting yes, this TA is unacceptable. I'll gladly work under C2012 for another few years. |
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1905086)
You're the guy who said management wouldn't try to change profit sharing. Your credibility here is shot.
My last post is easily verifiable and, you know, a fact so I'm not sure what my credibility has to do with it anyway. By the way, I'm an on the fence voter who wants more information (about scope and LCA drops) before making a decision. Shouting down anyone who tries to bring facts to the conversation isn't particularly appealing to me. Maybe I'm alone in my distaste for divisive politics but I doubt it. A few questions... 1. How does the international scope compare to what we are already doing? What we are projected to do? 2. What percentage of rotations will be removed from the FO bid package? 3. If we send the TA back what will happen? I know what the options are, I want to know what people think will actually happen. |
Originally Posted by gopher3
(Post 1905011)
The SLC Capt rep used to be an ATL rep...and got booted from ATL and ended up in SLC. He was also a negotiator at some point in his Aplo career. And Ive been saying all along, any FO rep that voted yes for this is a sell out looking out for their own interests. That or they have no stones to stand up to the arrogant insiders. Follow the bread crumbs and you will see that 12500 plus pilots are being sold out by just a handful of guys that have their own vision and truly do not represent us. At least 11 of these guys need to be kicked back to the line and get a taste of reality.
Carl |
Originally Posted by Howgozit
(Post 1904924)
How about doing a company wide movement insted of LAX only?
|
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1905049)
It wasn't in the survey, either. Nor were LCA trip pulls.
This speaks to a massive failure of the strategic planning guys. They tried to include in the survey every single concession the company might want. They knew full well the survey would never be released. As long as every possible concession was addressed on the survey, they could politically claim such-and-such concession wasn't "a priority" for pilots to retain. They neglected to anticipate the company's moves. They were caught flat-footed, and are scrambling to recover. A total failure by Harwood. He'll try to cover his incompetence by cramming this down our throats. People used to occasionally say how stupid and easily rolled Moak was. He made millions as ALPA's president, and he'll be making more millions now running the Moak Group. This group of MEC admin's are no different. Carl |
Originally Posted by Oberon
(Post 1905197)
By the way, I'm an on the fence voter who wants more information (about scope and LCA drops) before making a decision. Shouting down anyone who tries to bring facts to the conversation isn't particularly appealing to me. Maybe I'm alone in my distaste for divisive politics but I doubt it.
A few questions... 1. How does the international scope compare to what we are already doing? What we are projected to do? 2. What percentage of rotations will be removed from the FO bid package? 3. If we send the TA back what will happen? I know what the options are, I want to know what people think will actually happen. 1. Using EASKs for the production of balance at least guaranteed that roughly 50% of JV passengers went across the pond on Delta metal. As I'm sure you're well aware, that language most recently had 1.5% wiggle room with a 3-year lookback and a 1-year cure, and Delta was never in compliance that entire time (I believe they ended with ~47.5% of the EASKs). Because we operate smaller-gauge equipment than AF/KLM, 50% EASKs amounted to something like 54% of the block hours and even Delta's non-compliant state left us with 51% of the block hours. Now we go to 50% which puts Delta back in compliance with another 1% of wiggle room. Going down to the minimum would take us down to about 46% of the JV passenger traveling on Delta metal - for now. Delta could further downgauge and it would have no effect on block hour ratio; Air France could add an A380 CDG-JFK and Delta could just add a 737-900ER BOS-AMS and it would all be perfectly compliant. Currently, Delta downgauging means they'd have to add more flights to make up for it (or AF/KL/AZ has to draw down capacity); and Air France adding an A380 means we add 2 A330s :) or 3 757s :eek:. Some ALPA-friendly posters here have claimed block hours have more downside protection, using the example that if AF parks a A380, we have to park 2 A330s - but there's nothing in the language that actually requires that, and in any case DL has never been anywhere close to the 50% so it's a moot point. 2. Someone took the ATL 88 wide report from a couple months ago and cross-referenced it to the LCAs. It's improbable that every LCA was giving OE on every trip, but we know they've been busy in that category, and we know they'll stay as busy or busier going forward. It amounted to something like 10.7% of the trips removed....and 90% of the LCA lines had weekends off! Obviously that won't be true in every category, but it's clearly a pretty major concession for junior FOs that take the seniority hit, senior FOs that lose out on GS opportunities, and junior CAs that suddenly find themselves sliding backwards as senior FOs upgrade to make up the lost money! 3. The company needed a few things, which was the only reason we opened early. I believe they will still need those things, and more urgently going forward, but will be unwilling to come back to the table immediately lest we demonstrate the benefits of unionism to the other employees. So we'll forego our 8% raise on 7/1, forego the 6% raise in 2016 but also keep about that much profit sharing we would have given up, keep LCA trips, keep current sick leave, keep current JV balance (and keep grieving it if the company continues to be out of compliance), etc. Eventually the company will come back and up the ante or make the concessions a bit less onerous (there were frankly far better ways to address their issues - we gave them a sledgehammer for issues that required a tackhammer). I don't think they'll park us in negotiations hell the entire time - but if they do, we're not in that bad of a spot to wait, while they kinda are. |
Originally Posted by JungleBus
(Post 1905366)
Hey Oberon, I thought for sure I had your phone number and was going to give you a call. Guess I don't, so we can do this here. You're a good guy if a bit trusting of ALPA - but then again, so was I a week ago. Here we go...
1. Using EASKs for the production of balance at least guaranteed that roughly 50% of JV passengers went across the pond on Delta metal. As I'm sure you're well aware, that language most recently had 1.5% wiggle room with a 3-year lookback and a 1-year cure, and Delta was never in compliance that entire time (I believe they ended with ~47.5% of the EASKs). Because we operate smaller-gauge equipment than AF/KLM, 50% EASKs amounted to something like 54% of the block hours and even Delta's non-compliant state left us with 51% of the block hours. Now we go to 50% which puts Delta back in compliance with another 1% of wiggle room. Going down to the minimum would take us down to about 46% of the JV passenger traveling on Delta metal - for now. Delta could further downgauge and it would have no effect on block hour ratio; Air France could add an A380 CDG-JFK and Delta could just add a 737-900ER BOS-AMS and it would all be perfectly compliant. Currently, Delta downgauging means they'd have to add more flights to make up for it (or AF/KL/AZ has to draw down capacity); and Air France adding an A380 means we add 2 A330s :) or 3 757s :eek:. Some ALPA-friendly posters here have claimed block hours have more downside protection, using the example that if AF parks a A380, we have to park 2 A330s - but there's nothing in the language that actually requires that, and in any case DL has never been anywhere close to the 50% so it's a moot point. 2. Someone took the ATL 88 wide report from a couple months ago and cross-referenced it to the LCAs. It's improbable that every LCA was giving OE on every trip, but we know they've been busy in that category, and we know they'll stay as busy or busier going forward. It amounted to something like 10.7% of the trips removed....and 90% of the LCA lines had weekends off! Obviously that won't be true in every category, but it's clearly a pretty major concession for junior FOs that take the seniority hit, senior FOs that lose out on GS opportunities, and junior CAs that suddenly find themselves sliding backwards as senior FOs upgrade to make up the lost money! 3. The company needed a few things, which was the only reason we opened early. I believe they will still need those things, and more urgently going forward, but will be unwilling to come back to the table immediately lest we demonstrate the benefits of unionism to the other employees. So we'll forego our 8% raise on 7/1, forego the 6% raise in 2016 but also keep about that much profit sharing we would have given up, keep LCA trips, keep current sick leave, keep current JV balance (and keep grieving it if the company continues to be out of compliance), etc. Eventually the company will come back and up the ante or make the concessions a bit less onerous (there were frankly far better ways to address their issues - we gave them a sledgehammer for issues that required a tackhammer). I don't think they'll park us in negotiations hell the entire time - but if they do, we're not in that bad of a spot to wait, while they kinda are. This is exactly the kind of factual no nonsense analysis we need to present every time a fence sitter asks questions. This TA is deeply flawed. We just need to make people aware of it. |
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 1904751)
If you guys want to be successful, tell your e-mail writers to ensure they stay fact based. Example: B737-900 ETOPS to Europe? Please. Also, if changing to block hours is a "land grab", what happens when Alitalia's EASK are pulled out of the JV next year versus what will happen under a block hour regimen? What happens as we add A330-300 to replace 7ER flying under the same premise?
Make sure they're prepared with facts as they grab the torches and pitchforks. JMO. A321LR 4000nm JFK-CDG = 3148nm Please........ |
So when do Delta pilots vote on this TA?
|
Originally Posted by JungleBus
(Post 1905366)
Hey Oberon, I thought for sure I had your phone number and was going to give you a call. Guess I don't, so we can do this here. You're a good guy if a bit trusting of ALPA - but then again, so was I a week ago. Here we go...
1. Using EASKs for the production of balance at least guaranteed that roughly 50% of JV passengers went across the pond on Delta metal. As I'm sure you're well aware, that language most recently had 1.5% wiggle room with a 3-year lookback and a 1-year cure, and Delta was never in compliance that entire time (I believe they ended with ~47.5% of the EASKs). Because we operate smaller-gauge equipment than AF/KLM, 50% EASKs amounted to something like 54% of the block hours and even Delta's non-compliant state left us with 51% of the block hours. Now we go to 50% which puts Delta back in compliance with another 1% of wiggle room. Going down to the minimum would take us down to about 46% of the JV passenger traveling on Delta metal - for now. Delta could further downgauge and it would have no effect on block hour ratio; Air France could add an A380 CDG-JFK and Delta could just add a 737-900ER BOS-AMS and it would all be perfectly compliant. Currently, Delta downgauging means they'd have to add more flights to make up for it (or AF/KL/AZ has to draw down capacity); and Air France adding an A380 means we add 2 A330s :) or 3 757s :eek:. Some ALPA-friendly posters here have claimed block hours have more downside protection, using the example that if AF parks a A380, we have to park 2 A330s - but there's nothing in the language that actually requires that, and in any case DL has never been anywhere close to the 50% so it's a moot point. 2. Someone took the ATL 88 wide report from a couple months ago and cross-referenced it to the LCAs. It's improbable that every LCA was giving OE on every trip, but we know they've been busy in that category, and we know they'll stay as busy or busier going forward. It amounted to something like 10.7% of the trips removed....and 90% of the LCA lines had weekends off! Obviously that won't be true in every category, but it's clearly a pretty major concession for junior FOs that take the seniority hit, senior FOs that lose out on GS opportunities, and junior CAs that suddenly find themselves sliding backwards as senior FOs upgrade to make up the lost money! 3. The company needed a few things, which was the only reason we opened early. I believe they will still need those things, and more urgently going forward, but will be unwilling to come back to the table immediately lest we demonstrate the benefits of unionism to the other employees. So we'll forego our 8% raise on 7/1, forego the 6% raise in 2016 but also keep about that much profit sharing we would have given up, keep LCA trips, keep current sick leave, keep current JV balance (and keep grieving it if the company continues to be out of compliance), etc. Eventually the company will come back and up the ante or make the concessions a bit less onerous (there were frankly far better ways to address their issues - we gave them a sledgehammer for issues that required a tackhammer). I don't think they'll park us in negotiations hell the entire time - but if they do, we're not in that bad of a spot to wait, while they kinda are. Thx |
Originally Posted by deltajuliet
(Post 1905428)
So when do Delta pilots vote on this TA?
|
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 1904720)
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif
Guys, Here is a cut and paste of an E-mail chain that is going around mainly in LAX. If we can duplicate this movement in other bases we can counter the DLAPA spin machine and defeat this TA. The MEC vote was 11-8. It was clearly a very weak TA. I removed the individual Pilot names because I do not have permission to post them. Scoop Ladies and Gentlemen, For some of you, I am reaching out to you for the very first time. This is an historic time for us all, and it behooves us to fully understand all of the details of this TA. I personally know many of you are very upset about this TA and feel that it falls way short. We will soon have the opportunity to tell the MEC how we feel about it. Our goal is to defeat this TA overwhelmingly during the MEMRAT phase and send a strong message to DAL management that we expect and are ready to negotiate for a much better contract. Following a TA defeat we will consider a recall of our LAX representatives. Many of us expressed our displeasure with the TA directly to our elected reps prior to the MEC voting on it, and it is now apparent that they ignored our emails, texts, and phone calls by voting for the TA. We can accomplish a recall by building an electronic network of concerned LAX pilots. Everyone receiving this email is being asked to confirm they would like to proceed with a possible recall of the LAX LEC. Also, please discuss during debrief times the information presented regarding the TA and possible recall. Ask your CAPT or FO if they are interested in being added to our list. We can only proceed if we have enough support. Before we cast votes in the MEMRAT phase of the TA, please consider the following information. Remember, if the TA is defeated, there are no changes to the contract we enjoy now. Concessions: -AF/KLM/AZ Joint Venture Scope: If this TA passes, we will only fly 50% of the BLOCK HOURS in our trans-atlantic agreement, instead of 50% of the SEAT KILOMETERS. In other words, Delta could fly one 757/767 or A330 while AF is flying their A380, where presently we would have to fly four 757s or nearly three 767s or two A330s on the same route to match the A380’s capacity! Do we like wide body flying? This is the largest grab at Delta Mainline flying since the invention of the regional jet. Is there a chance the new 737-900ER order is to replace some aging 767s operated on overseas routes? You bet there is, and yes the -900’s are ETOPS capable. -RJ Scope: If the TA passes, DCI will be allowed 25 more 76-seat rjs to fly around, and we get up to 50 98-seat EMB-190s. Also, the present restrictions on rj flying (miles per route, hub-to-hub, and specific departure/arrival locations) will all disappear. And the 50-seat rj will NOT go away… the TA calls for a reduction not in 50-seat jets, but a reduction in annual block hours flown by 50-seaters, and only after the company gets their 70-76-seater. -Other JV scope concessions: If the TA passes, the look-back period for compliance on the JV is changed from 3 years down to 1. Could management want this to cover their past poor practices? They have not done the contractually required flying for the last 4 years and by changing this to a 1 year look-back, they get a fresh start and we get no future grievance check. -Sick leave: If this TA passes, the sick year changes from 1 June - 31 May to a rolling 365-day window. More onerous is the change in verification triggers. Our present 100-hour trigger for having to verify a sickness will now be split into two: one of them (“Verification Threshold) will be 15 missed work days, and the other (“Medical Release Threshold”) will be 24 or more work days missed in a one year rolling window or 56 work days missed in a three year rolling window! It gets better - if the TA passes, the “certificate” we have to provide proving our illness must include a description of the illness and an estimate return to work date instead of just a “general description of illness” (and no date). If this wasn’t enough, please note the final detail: in the TA, our certificate of illness verification no longer goes to the CPO, it goes to the Director - Health Services, which is an AME designated by the company. Does this sound like an acceptable “improvement” in our work rules?? -OE Trips: If the TA passes, FOs who attempt to bid with LCA in the hopes they will get the trip bought off them will be sorry, as this provision is being changed. Instead of getting those PBS-awarded trips and watching them get bought off our line (plenty of that to happen for sure with so many new hires and retirements happening…) we will simply not be awarded the trip at all. Management will be withholding 75% of all the block hours bid by LCA and designating them for OE trips and not releasing them into the PBS award pool. So, we might get a trip with a LCA but it most certainly will not result in a trip buy. Another example of an industry leading set of work rules?? -Profit Sharing: We are basically funding our own pilot raise, again, just like C2012. Our new raise now looks like 8/0/3/3 when you back out the 6% reduction in profit sharing. At least three major Wall Street firms have already publicly estimated that our profit sharing concessions more than pay for our first two years of pay rate increases. If the TA passes, the trigger will change to the lower amount, all employee groups will see a reduction in profit sharing, and the chances of the trigger returning to where it is now are nil. To put the profit sharing in perspective, think about this example (not improbable by any stretch): In the current contract, a PTIX of $6 billion will result in $950,000,000 in total profit sharing payouts. If the TA passes, a PTIX of $6 billion will result in $600,000,000 in total profit sharing payout. The trigger in the TA removes $350,000,000, almost 37% of the money!! That’s our money, the gate agent’s money, the flight attendant’s money. Do we have the right to take away their profit sharing, simply to fund a pay raise? Do we think the company is suddenly NOT going to make handsome profits year over year and thus need this new lower trigger to ensure we get a raise? We already gave away 33 percent of profit sharing in C2012, do we really want to give away more? Defeat the TA and enjoy large profit sharing checks in Feb 2016, 2017, and beyond. Ask yourself why on earth should we take concessions on this TA at the time when our airline made the largest profit by any airline ever in the history of aviation and when the company has announced $6 Billion in givebacks to DAL shareholders. Some pilots may be afraid of change, or of turning this TA down. There may be a fear of “what next?” if this TA is voted down. Clearly, there is the obvious lack of an instantaneous pay bump but there should be no fear in loss of compensation - we have already proven that “retro pay” happens - we got it in 2001, other pilot groups have done the same since. The fear is really the concessions and how these concessions will further degrade our quality of life, our scope, our work rules. Are these concessions not fearsome in their own light? Are we really going to sell what little is left of our work rules and dignity for a little compensation? Clearly, there is much to fear if this TA passes. Please don’t fear Delta management. They need this TA more than we do. Below is a list of pilots that are upset or against the TA. Many on this list want to know why Tim Heck and Dan Riesgo voted yes to this TA. The majority of pilots on this list want them recalled. If you know more people that would like to join us and be included in this list, please have them email me with their name and position/base/equipment. If you would like your name removed from this list please contact me and I will remove you. I don’t mean to offend anyone, I simply want us all to have the facts. If I spelled your name wrong, I sincerely apologize. Thank you for your time, for your engagement, and for your support. If you are interested in joining this movement send me an E-mail: Steve Goode LAX 73N B [email protected] This should be posted in every crew room, or better yet, in every pilot's V-file... |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:40 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands