Notices

C48 pro/con letter

Old 06-16-2015, 09:02 AM
  #11  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Position: Downward-Facing Dog Pose
Posts: 1,537
Default

Originally Posted by DALMD88FO View Post
"If we turned it down, and if were successful in reengaging management on new terms, best-case scenario, we believe we might only gain a few percent more value. However, if it didn’t work, our downside risk was probably a few percent less value. This is because we’d reengage the company and likely get a version of this same deal later this year. However, we’d probably get skinned a few points of value in the process, so as not to reward bad behavior."


So it would be considered bad behavior by management if we turn down a deal that does not meet our requirements? That is too funny!

No, it's not funny. It's insulting. That verbiage implies mgmt are adults and the pilot group is a bunch of children.

Given that is MEC's perspective (and it clearly is), it's little wonder they approved this TA.
.
.
.
SayAlt is offline  
Old 06-16-2015, 09:16 AM
  #12  
The Brown Dot +1
 
scambo1's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Default

While I agree the letter is well written, I gotta go with a big So What.

It is interesting to read this viewpoint, but it is written without any critical thought as to the potential concessionary effect of the TA. As if maybe a high school sophomore had written about little big horn.

The rates aren't something to get all googley eyed about. This TA is a paycut. It hamb strings any FOs ability to make more money...with marginally less effect on the most senior FOs.

The additional QOL killers make it salt in the wound of the lower W2. Add to that the outsourcing provisions.

No way, no how. Sending this TA to the pilots and then selling it using positive phrasing is disconcerting at a minimum.
scambo1 is offline  
Old 06-16-2015, 09:17 AM
  #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,184
Default

Originally Posted by scambo1 View Post
While I agree the letter is well written, I gotta go with a big So What.

It is interesting to read this viewpoint, but it is written without any critical thought as to the potential concessionary effect of the TA. As if maybe a high school sophomore had written about little big horn.

The rates aren't something to get all googley eyed about. This TA is a paycut. It hamb strings any FOs ability to make more money...with marginally less effect on the most senior FOs.

The additional QOL killers make it salt in the wound of the lower W2. Add to that the outsourcing provisions.

No way, no how. Sending this TA to the pilots and then selling it using positive phrasing is disconcerting at a minimum.
Paycut? Help a brother out with that one.
BenderRodriguez is offline  
Old 06-16-2015, 09:24 AM
  #14  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 341
Default

"However, we’d probably get skinned a few points of value in the process, so as not to reward bad behavior."

Insulting is an understatement. Not the kind of statement I would expect from a Council Chairman representing his pilots. I think it is time for a new playbook. The other team knows what we think and what we are going to do.
gopher3 is offline  
Old 06-16-2015, 09:27 AM
  #15  
The Brown Dot +1
 
scambo1's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Default

Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez View Post
Paycut? Help a brother out with that one.
From my 777 soda straw view so far...

LCA trips un biddable, frms reserves assigned shortcall early on days off (then theoretically given trips that would be otherwise covered by overtime flying), sick time counting for credit. These all negatively affect GS opportunities.

I'm sure I'm not covering some of the other interrelated items.

For me, personally, I'm seeing about $90-100k less based on these items negative effect on greenslip availability. I'm not looking for anyone to play me the smallest fiddle in the world, but I'm a mid pack FO and that's what I'm seeing.

Add to that list that profit sharing is calculated on w2 so chop about $16k more.
scambo1 is offline  
Old 06-16-2015, 09:42 AM
  #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,184
Default

Originally Posted by scambo1 View Post
From my 777 soda straw view so far...

LCA trips un biddable, frms reserves assigned shortcall early on days off (then theoretically given trips that would be otherwise covered by overtime flying), sick time counting for credit. These all negatively affect GS opportunities.

I'm sure I'm not covering some of the other interrelated items.

For me, personally, I'm seeing about $90-100k less based on these items negative effect on greenslip availability. I'm not looking for anyone to play me the smallest fiddle in the world, but I'm a mid pack FO and that's what I'm seeing.

Add to that list that profit sharing is calculated on w2 so chop about $16k more.
What happens when the airline is properly staffed and GSs go away? I have a hard time including greenslip as pay that can be depended on and including that as a method to call the TA'd rates as a "paycut". I hear what you are saying, but I think that a bit disingenuous to call it a paycut. What happens if you get displaced to the 330? Is that a paycut? For you personally it is, but since the rates on the 330 have not changed, it is not a true paycut. Let's institute a cap. Is that a paycut?
BenderRodriguez is offline  
Old 06-16-2015, 09:51 AM
  #17  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Position: Downward-Facing Dog Pose
Posts: 1,537
Default

Compare and contrast...

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp View Post
As always, very very well written comm from C48. I asked them their feelings on the LCA trip pulls since that wasn't addressed, but overall a nicely balanced letter.

Fellow Instructors,

As you know, the Association achieved a tentative agreement (TA) with Delta management on June 4. On Wednesday, June 10, the Delta Master Executive Council (MEC) voted in favor of sending the agreement to the pilots for membership ratification. We have 19 voting reps on the MEC, and the final vote tally was 11 to 8.

Your Council 48 chairman, Sam Mason, voted in favor. We heard from many of you in the last week and throughout the Section 6 process. Your feedback and opinions were passionate and varied significantly. We would expect nothing less from a group of highly intelligent overachievers. Just like on the MEC, debate and disagreement are a healthy part of the process and should be welcomed. In the end, the MEC made a decision, and now you’ll have a voice and decision to make when you cast your vote. Before we go any further, we want you to know that we will respect whatever decision you make, and ultimately wanted to provide the opportunity for your voice to be heard.

Overview

Your council officers have been aggressively engaged with the MEC in the Section 6 process for many months. We had 10 meetings since the first of the year, and most of that time was spent ardently debating the issues and trying to make the pie bigger for instructors and all Delta pilots.

From the beginning, Delta senior management told us there were specific items we needed to address in order dive into our issues and unlock value for our pilots. Company items were: sick leave, productivity, profit sharing, and the EMB-190s. Up until just recently, the EMB-190 opportunity was not something we could discuss publicly, and deposits on these aircraft were tied to the aggressive timeline. Delta senior management acknowledged the C2012 book rates may not work for this aircraft, and were willing to provide an industry-leading rate. We also believe this was to help mitigate potential training churn, and make the aircraft attractive to Delta pilots with a few years of experience.

Please know that we did not accept many of the company’s initial proposals or terms, and outright rejected many of them. There were many long days and nights filled with extremely thorough debates and analysis. Our goal was to shape and steer the issues so they’d result in minimum give, while extracting maximum value. If you have the opportunity to converse with another rep (including those who voted “no”), we encourage you to seek their opinion on our collective effort as well.


First Impressions

When we first saw the final version of the TA, our initial reaction was disappointment. We knew going into the TA meeting, based upon our direction and feedback from the company, there were likely going to be many positive gains. We also knew there were some gives, or small concessions required in order to get to the endgame and total value. When we saw a summary of the whole package, with the compensation changes—that’s when the negative emotions initially arrived.

We realize some of the changes, and certainly the optics, may not meet the desires and expectations of many pilots. We’ve also heard from many pilots who feel we shouldn’t have to give up anything in the current financial environment. Your council officers also shared many of those hopes and desires, and we had to step back and analyze the positives and negatives side-by-side over several days in order to formulate our conclusion.

So Why Are You Sending Us This?

Why would we vote in favor of sending you an agreement that initially fell short of some of our expectations? Simply put, when we settled down and objectively studied the TA, we found there is still significant value there. Enough value that we felt this was worth letting approximately 12,000 families get a chance to vote.

Approaching Minimums

Call the bluff and hit the TOGA buttons! This was a topic of discussion and a strategy that several encouraged us to deploy. We are 100 percent certain it would have “felt good,” but as your elected leaders, it may not have been the wisest strategy.

First, over the last six months, we received briefings from many professionals in the industry, including professional labor attorneys and two members of the National Mediation Board. While it may not feel fair, the “ability to pay” may not be a primary factor on the direction that mediators use to help resolve disagreement. Secondly, while it may not feel fair, “the opinion of the majority on the MEC,” and/or “the opinion of a majority of 12,000 pilots,” does not necessarily correlate to a marketplace reality.

There were many schools of thought amongst the MEC reps. We perceived that some had more of a “fearful yes” bias, and their view was, absent a deal, that the company would simply turn their backs on us and walk away. We’d then find ourselves in the same spot after a protracted period of mediated discussion, and lose significant value between now and then. Then there were others who seemed to have a “just say no” bias. We perceived that view assumed that “you never get your best deal the first time,” and that if we would finally just “stand up for ourselves” we’d “gain respect and realize more value”—perhaps even significantly more value.

Your council officers found ourselves seeing it differently than either of the two views just mentioned. It’s true—we will never know what might have been, unless we were willing to go there. But in our minds, the “fearful yes” argument had no more merit than the “just say no argument.” In all reality, we were probably stuck in a limited range of bandwidth and upside/downside potential.

If we turned it down, and if were successful in reengaging management on new terms, best-case scenario, we believe we might only gain a few percent more value. However, if it didn’t work, our downside risk was probably a few percent less value. This is because we’d reengage the company and likely get a version of this same deal later this year. However, we’d probably get skinned a few points of value in the process, so as not to reward bad behavior.

A healthy relationship with pilots is good for Delta Air Lines, so we don’t think the extreme examples had much merit. However, based upon our view of the landscape, the upside risks weren’t worth the downside gamble. Since we all heard from many pilots in our councils who wanted a chance to vote on it (presumably for the increased pay), the MEC decided by a narrow margin to send it on for membership ratification.

Details, Pros and Cons

Many of you have already inquired with detailed questions. The MEC Communications Committee, Negotiating Committee, and subject-matter experts will be producing detailed products to explain changes to all relevant sections of our agreement. Your council officers will also be communicating with you more in coming weeks.

In the spirit of intellectual honesty, we have produced a list of five pros and cons in the TA. Unfortunately, some of the items show up in both columns because they add significant value, but they didn’t meet our hopes and expectations. These may not represent your top five, but they are our simply our opinion. Also, there are other pros and cons that are not listed. For example, extra DC contribution, or sick-leave changes are not listed. We believe the items below are the most significant for instructors and/or for the average pilot in our group.

Pros

1. Pay rates were increased by approximately 15 percent (compounded), over the life of the deal, independent of any monetized profit sharing. We also realize an aggregate 21.5 percent (compounded) fixed pay increase with some profit sharing converted. Our 2018 hourly rates represent the best in the industry, and the highest ever achieved at premerger Delta or Northwest.

2. Profit sharing was converted from variable compensation to fixed compensation properly. There is no upside cap, and all potential profit sharing was captured at slightly better than a 1-to-1 ratio below $6.0B PTIX. If PTIX is above $6.0B, there is no change. Ironically, the less money Delta earns below $6.0B PTIX, the greater the implied value of this exchange. Again, there is no upper end limit or cap on profit sharing, and we captured all potential profit sharing below $6.0B PTIX in the form of a fixed pay increase, therefore, it’s not mathematically possible to ever make less compensation under the new agreement. This was a critical stipulation that your reps had a hand in shaping. Anyone who would avoid this conversion method does not understand the math. It always results in the same or better compensation for the Delta pilots. These changes don’t take effect until 2016.

3. EMB-190, A350, and A321 pay rates. The EMB-190 is an exciting opportunity to continue to fix the broken regional industry and provide Delta customers a better product. All three aircraft have industry-leading pay rates, and in the case of the A350 and A321, they will be paid appropriately at the same rate as the B-777/B-747 and B-737-900, respectively. We pushed hard to establish pay levels that we feel are appropriate to these aircraft. Initial proposals had these aircraft paired with lower-paying aircraft.

4. Significantly improved block-hour ratio in PWA Section 1 D. 9. This provides for a minimum ratio of block hours between mainline and DCI. This was tightened up to reflect Delta’s mainline growth and the addition of small narrowbody aircraft (B-717s and EMB-190s). It ensures if mainline shrinks, DCI will have to shrink, almost proportionally.

5. SLIs gained sick-leave parity with the line pilot, a form of cancellation pay for up to 22 events, and a commitment to short and long-term plans for improving instructor schedules and schedule release dates. The latter is a work in progress, and we did conduct a follow-up conversation with Captain Jon Tovani to verbally confirm.

Cons

1. Pay rates were increased by approximately 15 percent (compounded), over the life of the deal, independent of any monetized profit sharing. We also realize an aggregate 21.5 percent (compounded) fixed pay increase with the profit sharing conversion. This fell short of our desires by several points, since we viewed any profit sharing conversion as purely incremental. We never get above American Airlines rates, or to Delta C2K 2004 peak rates, without taking into account a portion of the profit-sharing conversion.

2. SLI items were not addressed as thoroughly as we hoped. We achieved some small and significant gains via sick-leave parity with the line, a form of cancellation pay, and a commitment to improve the schedule build and release process, but that was about it. Many of you desired more golden days, experience commuter issues (wanted positive space and hotels), and perceive various opportunity costs when you look at your options back on the line. We did not achieve all we wanted in these areas.

3. Dilution of PWA 3. B. 4. language. It was modified so that Delta’s profit sharing is now included. This is the “me too clause” language that triggered our small raise in April. While it’s difficult to prove that it would provide meaningful value down the road, it was a form of insurance that we don't like seeing altered.

4. Profit sharing formula (PTIX) was adjusted to no longer exclude gains and losses on employee equity securities. It’s a small change that potentially removes millions from a base of billions, but we wish it didn't change nonetheless.

5. New metrics in the Air France, KLM, and Alitalia JV. Specifically, the change from 50 percent (plus or minus 1.5 percent) EASKs, to 50 percent (minus 1 percent tolerance) of aircraft block hours. Under the current agreement and mix of flying, if you remove the overlapping flights that are protected by the Virgin Atlantic JV language, in order to be in compliance, it would require Delta to fly about 53 percent of block hours. This gap was just settled via a $30M grievance award. Going forward, changing from EASKs to block hours has the potential, but not the guarantee, to be slightly negative versus our current PWA. However, it can cut both ways. Since Delta presently has a smaller average gauge than its partners, during periods of decline, block hours are more favorable than EASKs for Delta pilots. Conversely, during periods where all carriers are adding seats, block hours may be less favorable. Lastly, in a static environment, if Delta’s fleet is up-gauging (i.e., replacing B-767s with A330s) and everything else remains the same, then block hours are also more favorable for Delta pilots. We do like the change to a one-year look-back and feel the agreement is at least now more enforceable.

SLI Issues

We pushed very hard for improvements on SLI issues. We consolidated our notes from all of our phone calls, e-mails, texts, and face-to-face conversations with you, and even received broad MEC support for most of our items. Up until the very end, we were told that “things were looking pretty good for SLIs,” and we perceived many of our issues might be addressed.

In the end, we lost traction because management made an aggressive push for increased use of non-seniority-list instructors (NSLIs), and decreased use of captain instructors. This parallels the theme of seeking more productivity out of line pilots, and obviously there is a financial benefit. After much deliberation with the other members of the MEC, it was collectively decided that we didn’t want to permit any additional privileges for NSLIs (particularly jeopardy check rides), and a Training Department with fewer captain instructors was not in the best interest of the line pilot or instructor cadre.

Prior to the MEC meeting last week, we followed up with a face-to-face meeting with Captain Jon Tovani. We had a conversation about the final schedule release dates, and our inability to secure PWA language to guarantee a fixed date. We relayed the challenges many of us face with planning for the next month. He has acknowledged this, and is committed to working with us to address these and other concerns. All of our meetings with him thus far have been very productive, and we’re planning another follow-up meeting in July.

Conclusion

Our negotiators told us they believe they’ve extracted as much value as they could achieve in this negotiation. We accept their premises as true. After we fully analyzed the TA, we recognize it does contain significant value, even if not above a threshold that some had expected.

Were the EMB-190s and additional 737-900s going to arrive anyway? Maybe, but we had no way to ascertain, unless we had an insider tip from the aircraft seller’s camp. Could we achieve more if we hit TOGA and tried to reengage? Possibly, but your council officers felt there was not enough upside potential to risk making this deal any less valuable.

Perhaps we are victims of our own success? There are no other carriers except American to assist with pattern bargaining, and they don’t have profit sharing. Remember when Fed Ex, UPS, and Southwest had enviable pay rates on their respective aircraft? Some management teams at legacy carriers even suggested they weren’t part of the legacy carrier’s competitive set. Fortunately, or unfortunately, we caught up to, or exceeded their rates in C2012, and many of these carriers are currently locked in protracted formal negotiations.

Ultimately, we feel the pros outweigh the cons in this deal, but we want our members to be able to draw their own conclusions accordingly. Now you get to decide if it’s what you want, what you think you deserve, and, most importantly, what you are willing to live with.

Communications Plan

We apologize if we have missed a call back or e-mail reply as the volume has been very high. As a reminder, we have three council officers. Chairman Sam Mason has been getting 90-plus percent of the e-mail and call volume. Busch and Keith were at the table throughout the entire process and can assist as well. Please do not hesitate to contact us with your questions.

Attached to this document are two PDF files that consist of some of the detailed data we studied in the endgame process. These are also located on the Delta ALPA website under the C2015 banner. We encourage you to browse these documents, particularly the Analysis of Pay Impacts presentation.

We will be in touch again in the coming weeks, and will spend some time in the instructor lounges beginning later this week. Look for more e-mail communication from the MEC Communications Committee, Negotiating Committee, as well as from your council officers.

Sincerely,

Sam, Busch, and Keith

(to be continued)
.
.
.
SayAlt is offline  
Old 06-16-2015, 09:52 AM
  #18  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Position: Downward-Facing Dog Pose
Posts: 1,537
Default

...with...


Originally Posted by orvil View Post
I got this from another forum. It's from the CVG FO LEC Rep. I removed his email and phone number. It seemed the prudent thing to do.



First Officer Representative’s Perspective
C2015 TA—Part 1
Scope and Compensation
June 15, 2015

On Friday, Council 108 Captain Representative and Chairman Robert Hazzard sent you an update highlighting the positive attributes of the C2015 TA. In his glowing analysis of the TA, Captain Hazzard neglected to include most of the negative aspects of this agreement. When I ran for the first officer representative position, I promised you that I would be straight and honest with you. I said that I will not try to sell anything to you, but will lay out the pros and cons of any agreement being voted on. I will honor that promise and not sell you on the merits of this tentative agreement.
While writing this perspective, I began to notice many disparities between what we were briefed on and in what I was actually finding in the language. As a result, I didn’t just repeat talking points; I took the time to do a deep dive into the language of this TA. My goal for this two-part perspective is to show you my opinion of the good and the bad as well as to explain my vote against the MEC resolution to send the TA to the membership for ratification and help you to make the best decision for you and your family.

Scope

The company approached the MEC late in negotiations with a proposal to allow additional 76-seat RJs at DCI carriers in exchange for 50 100-seat mainline jets. I am for capturing any additional flying for mainline that we can, be it big or small. However, I am not for giving up any additional scope protections to achieve it, certainly not paying for it at the negotiating table. Here are the details with my commentary:

- DCI fleet shrinks by 25 total airplanes (5.6% hull number, 2% seat count)
- Addition of 25 permitted 76-seat RJs at DCI. We are basically trading 50 50-seat RJs for 25 additional 76-seat RJs and the guaranteed purchase of the E190s.
- Mainline to DCI block-hour ratio increases from 1.35:1 to 1.81:1
- Removes the 1.D.4-6 restrictions.

o Eliminating 1.D.4 eliminates the requirement for at least 85% of the category A and C operations each month to be under 900 statute miles.
o Eliminating 1.D.5 removes the requirement for at least 90% of all category A and C operations each month to operate from ATL, CVG, DTW, FLL, LAX, MEM, MSP, LGA, JFK, MCO, SLC, SEA, and TPA (i.e., actually connecting passengers to the Delta network, not point to point).
o Eliminating 1.D.6 removes the restriction of Category A and C carriers from
flying between the airports listed in 1.D.5 (hub-to-hub flying).
o Removing the 1.D.4-6 language allows the company to use the RJs like mainline, meaning they aren’t being used to necessarily feed mainline anymore.

- TAJV reduced to a 50% block-hour capacity baseline
- Converted from an EASK metric to block-hour metric for all transatlantic flying
- 1% buffer and a one-year measurement/cure period.
- Changes to Section 1.E.9

On the large airplane flying, we have converted the EASK metric to a block-hour metric. On one hand, this is good because block hours equals pilot jobs and this is a good downside protection; however, we lose the upside protection the EASK metric provides during up gauging. We also reduced from the current 51% of bundle flying to 50% on the TAJV, including the carveout for UK with Virgin Atlantic. If we had been on a block-hour metric instead of EASKs over the last four years, the company would have been in compliance. So, what we are really doing is changing the terms that they didn’t live up to into what they can live up to currently, which allows the company to be in compliance. This is a further concession on top of what was conceded by Captain Donatelli with the grievance settlement two weeks ago.

A further concern is AF/KL/AZ increasing gauge with Delta decreasing gauge all the while keeping the block hours the same. Currently Section 1.R.2 has a twin-aisle production balance, which was negotiated under the VS JF LOA, which keeps us safe in this scenario. However, you must ask yourself, what if Delta ended the joint venture with Virgin Atlantic? Under this scenario, the twin-aisle production balance using ASKs would go away, which would allow AF/KL/AZ to upgauge while Delta downgauges. Given the overcapacity in the transatlantic market, the capacity flooding of the ME3, and the refusal of our JV partners to reduce capacity, I am not comfortable with our exposure created by eliminating the EASK requirement of Section 1.P.4 under this TA. I believe we should have both metrics in 1.P.4.

Another aspect of the TA as it relates to the AF/KL/AZ JV is the measurement period. The 3-year measurement/1-year cure has been converted to a 1-year measurement/1-year cure. This is a good thing except that, in theory, the company could be in compliance 1 year, out the next, then cure back in the following, then out, then in into perpetuity. This is not exactly what I have in mind for protection.

Section 1.E.9 was inserted into the PWA under the auspices of improving fragmentation protection. The first sentence of this section is good, limiting any international partner from placing Delta livery on their aircraft or using the Delta name. However, the second sentence gives the MEC chairman sole approval to allow Delta to engage in such a scheme. While this should not be an issue, I will remind you of the recent settlement our MEC chairman agreed to on the AF/KL/AZ JV settlement without consultation from the MEC. Prior to coming to Delta, I flew for Astar Air Cargo, which had been the original DHL Airways. One of the ways DHL was able to build a vast international network was setting up national carriers all over the world that fed into the network. They all wore DHL colors and as far as anyone could tell were DHL. But they were not, and the pilots were not of our seniority list, often making 30 cents on the dollar. Toward the end of my time there, I saw much of our flying go to other carriers along with our airplanes and a naïve MEC chairman negotiate a deal to trade scope protection for pay that ended up getting 80% of the pilot group permanently furloughed within 6 months and the rest just a few years later. In my opinion, the new 1.E.9 language in this TA sets a
dangerous precedence just like DHL by giving a single person so much authority to sign away so much of our protection.

Compensation

We received seemingly modest increases to our hourly rates as followed:
- 8% on 7/1/2015
- 6% on 1/1/2016
- 3% on 1/1/2017
- 3% on 1/1/2018

I would be okay with those rates if it weren’t for one problem. Those rates are after the profit-sharing conversion. The profit sharing has been adjusted such that the trigger for the 20% has been moved from $2.5 billion to $6.0 billion for the profit-sharing year of 2016 and on. Delta has never exceeded $6.0 billion in a single year ever in the history of the company. Further, if you were to apply this metric to the 2014 profit sharing, the value would equal 5.74% hourly rate increase. The net effect is that the 6% raise on 1/1/2016 is reduced by the 5.74%, thanks to the conversion equaling a raise of .26%. Then the raises in 2017 and 2018 are eaten up by inflation, so the net effect is that you will only see an increase in 8.26% in your buying power. But wait, there’s more. The PTIX definition has been changed to include gains or losses with respect to employee equity securities which had not been there before. This means that management options will be taken out of the pretax income before we get our profit sharing, which further reduces our profit-sharing pie percentage. In my view, this is hardly historic.

Additional positive compensation notes:

- Direct contribution increases from 15% to 16%.
- Per diem increases of $0.05/hr. on 7/1/15, 1/1/16, and again on 1/1/17.
- Per diem will be paid for deviation from deadhead with front- and back-end deviation
- Vacation pay increased to 3:30; however, credit remains 3:15 (bidding implications)
- CQ pay rises from 3:45 to 4:00
- A350 pay equal to 777 pay
- A321 pay equal to 739 pay
- A339 equal to A333/A332 pay
- E190 pay table increased to E195 pay rates
- 3. B.4 now includes profit-sharing metric
- Minimum pay increased to ALV for pilots in training
- 2 hours suit-up pay if meeting with a chief pilot (excludes probation evaluation)

The 3.B.4 metric is somewhat elusive on first glance. It looks like no big deal until you accept that it only compares the Delta rate to United and AA rates. The TA language now includes profit sharing into the metric where it wasn’t before. Since AA has no profit sharing at all, this has the effect of dragging down the average. This means that unless AA gets a huge hourly rate increase (unlikely) this has virtually nullified the 3.B.4 language as with our remaining profit sharing AA is unlikely to catch up.

Part 1 Summary

Having been on the losing side of scope a number of times in my career, I take it very
seriously. There is a good reason why it is always Section 1 of any ALPA contract. In this TA we have effectively traded away key pieces of our scope to attempt to unlock value in compensation and to chase the shiny new used jet. Unfortunately, we failed at the pay only getting a net increase in pay of 8.26% after the effects of inflation and profit-sharing conversion and we traded scope to get airplanes we can already get. Was it worth the trade? I think not, but that is for you to decide when you cast your vote.

In Part 2, I will outline changes to Sick and Scheduling/Work Rules. Scope and Compensation were difficult areas for me to give up, but what changed in Sick and Scheduling were absolute show-stoppers when I cast my “no” vote. I will also include a summary on my view of the negotiating process. Stay tuned, as Part 2 is coming soon.

Ryan

Ryan Schnitzler
DAL 108
First Officer Rep/Vice Chairman

Clearly, the 1st letter was written by those who approve of the TA. The 2nd was written by one who does not. Who do you believe is more credible?
.
.
SayAlt is offline  
Old 06-16-2015, 10:10 AM
  #19  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 341
Default

Originally Posted by SayAlt View Post
...with...





Clearly, the 1st letter was written by those who approve of the TA. The 2nd was written by one who does not. Who do you believe is more credible?
.
.
And the C48 letter does not even mention or explain the LCA bidding changes or Sick Leave policy concessions in their CON list.
gopher3 is offline  
Old 06-16-2015, 12:20 PM
  #20  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Position: Downward-Facing Dog Pose
Posts: 1,537
Default

SayAlt is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
AUS_ATC
Major
24
01-25-2010 12:27 PM
DLax85
Cargo
6
11-04-2009 06:01 AM
BigGuns
Mergers and Acquisitions
50
04-19-2008 05:22 AM
Micro
Cargo
0
10-30-2007 02:51 PM
Micro
Cargo
3
10-03-2007 11:29 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices