SayAlt

It's really very, very simple.

Let me make it even more simple than ^^^^this^^^^.



The airline is experiencing RECORD (read: unprecedented, never seen before) profits with more on the way.
Mgmt, not the union, wants....NEEDS...a deal done FAST.

By a 1st (not 2nd, 3rd, etc) vote of 11-8, this "deal" is being sent to the pilots for a vote by MEC.

This was not a unanimous MEC vote (and what does that tell you?).
It's 1st cut.
It's MONTHS ahead of schedule (when mgmt wants (needs??) it done FAST. Goodbye leverage!)
It is hugely (not just a little) concessionary in very significant ways.
It does NOT appreciably raise the bar at a time of RECORD profits.
It only restores pay to where it once was, not where it should be (inflation adjusted).

Worst of all, if the union cannot get a far, far better contract during these best of times....and this is NOT a far, far better contact than C2015 by any stretch of the imagination....what message does that send to DAL mgmt (and the entire industry)?? We all know the answer to that, as well as what will come during negotiations during an industry downturn.


This is not a "yes" contract. It is a no-brainer "NO" contract. And not even a "No" contract, but a HELL NO contact.

The big picture makes it easy. It's an easy NO.

Thank you for your consideration and time.
.

Timbo

My thoughts exactly. Thanks!

Sink r8

I think you're trying too hard, and I think you're wrong. If you want people to keep track of the big picture, the big picture according to the practice roadshow is that pilots prioritize 1) pay, 2) pay, and 3) pay. Under that scenario, assuming no one is trying to b.s. anyone else by counting the raises without counting the PS monetization, people might be tempted to vote a little quick.

I found an FO just like that on the JS the other day. Asked him his thoughts on the TA. "Show me the money", he said. "Looks good to me". Had to ask him if he really understood the various issues. How did he feel about 23.G.5? "Don't care: I'm going to the left seat in two weeks". Can't make this stuff up.

What is it about the details you fear people might get lost in?

SayAlt

I think you make a valid point. So I've edited my OP accordingly.

Speaking to both my and your points...


Big picture or at a granular level, this is an easy "NO" contract.

.

Sink r8

I have no problem with "no" votes, particularly considered no votes. I was on another jumpseat recently. Great Captain, flew with him recently. Doesn't like what he sees. Had reviewed everything pertinent, and would review this thoroughly. I'd take his considered review leading to a "no" over a knee-jerk "yes".

I also don't mind people people arguing how others should vote, although overall, I don't care how people think and should vote, and vice-versa.

Where I draw the line is wholesale sales-pitches, for or against, especially when they're distorting facts.

Make the best case you can, and let this thing rise/fall on the facts. I think the gifs are sort of funny, but getting a bit repetitive, and it would kill your credibility if you're not a Delta pilot. Not sure why Hawaii5.0 is questioning it, but I find him generally credible. No one at all can compel you to disclose, and no one wants to out anyone, so no specifics, but you don't want to become Lynn Bumberg on APC.

Regards,

Sink r8

Pilotfo64

8% raise is not worth the loss of progression and trip bidding seniority. You'll all be affected. I think you would lose the valu of the raise in no time. And greenslips would become less common.

Rama

Just curious if anyone could shed some light on how much the pay would be a year from now with the TA and less profit sharing as opposed to without the TA and the current profit sharing.

Sink r8

I think the literal answer to your question is that on 01.01.2016 it would be 14.5% more total, compounded (8% 07.01.2015 and 6% 01.01.2016), with the TA, than without the TA.

That's actually sort of a trick question, because the TA keeps the current PS unchanged for 2015, so the 2016 PS payment is unaffected (which is not true in subsequent years).

The 2017 PS payment would be most likely 5.74% lower than without a TA, after a 3% increase on 01.01.2017, and before the next 3% on 01.01.2018.

The problem is that no one knows what PTIX will be in 2016. To compare scenarios with and without the TA, you have to speculate on PTIX. We're converting some PS, and getting credit as if we were going to keep making $6B PTIX. If the company makes less, we still get the full 5.74% in payrates, but the amount of PS we would have received would be less than that if PTIX < $6B, so the differential between the two scenarios changes. If the company makes <$6B PTIX, the monetization is a favorable trade, when viewed as a stand-alone item. If the company makes more, the amount of PS above $6B PTIX remains unchanged in the TA.

Fish on

How about that it is still 20% below 2004 wages adjusted for inflation in 2018?

Sink r8

I think that's probably in the ballpark, but you'd have to make assumptions on PS for 2018 to make that claim. We traded 100% of our PS for payrates for C2K, so we don't have to factor any PS in for the front end, but we obviously need to plug in something for 2018.

My notes here show us about 3.3% above 2004 rates for PMDL, and ~25% PMNW, excluding PS or DC by 2018.