Originally Posted by TheManager (Post 1910727)

It's this simple:

Is the company in compliance today with the JV scope:

NO


Will the company be in compliance if we ratify this TA


YES



No brainer vote for for me. NO.

Originally Posted by Woofers (Post 1909974)

Dear Fellow Brother Delta Pilots,

There's a ton of emotion going on in everything I've read online, and no obvious fixes for anything that is bothering the NO crowd. Hey, if you want to vote NO, vote NO! All of the complaining and rancor sounds like a squirrel that was stuck in the bird feeder once.

I feel pretty qualified to put my reasons for voting yes. I was furloughed, then subsequently kicked in the balls over and over by the company AND ALPA during the bankruptcy. Yay! I was so disenfranchised by ALPA that I did send in 2 - count 'em- two DPA cards.

My biggest point of contention was the RJ. Delta and ALPA gave our jobs away en masse during a dark period in our history. Through contractual gains and the reality that RJ's suck in general, they are going away, and scope is no longer a major point of contention for me anymore. -Though it could be, just not now.

Three years ago, I sounded like the squirrel in the birdhouse. After our massive sacrifices 12-3-3 sounded grossly inadequate. But my reps told me to be patient, play along, and things will get better. So I did. During this latest contract survey, I wanted two things: 1). Don't change the work rules. My quality of life is outstanding, don't mess it up. 2). Give me a generous raise, and get RID of profit sharing.

So in this T/A, it appears as though ALPA listened to my desires, specifically. -That's a joke, folks. The work rules haven't really changed. Yes, there were abuses of sick leave, and guys were bidding check airman trips so they wouldn't have to fly or could greenslip. Tell ya what. If I was making over 400k per year as a narrowbody FO, this contract would have me screaming mad and spitting bullets, too. But I'm not, and it doesn't. So the work rules don't give me any heartburn.

The profit-sharing thing: I don't particularly like profit sharing. Oh, if the company is doing well, it's great! If not, not so great. You can end up having wild swings in your income from year to year. And although I've been a pretty successful entrepreneur in other ventures, I rather like my airline income to be stable. You and I have absolutely no control over anything that could affect profit sharing. Why take the risk? There's no upside.

So in my infinitesimally small brain, I gave some thought as to what kind of raise I'd like in order to completely get rid of profit sharing. I came up with +/- 25%. And I realize that the company wasn't going to give me a 25% raise no matter what, even if profit sharing no longer exists. But how was ALPA going to deal with me and my lofty goals?

Well, they cut a compromise that suits me just fine. An 18% raise while retaining profit sharing. I don't have a problem with that. You know how earlier I stated that ALPA told me to just go with the program three years ago? By the time this contract is signed, (If it is, not trying to be flame bait here) we will be up 32% in wages in three years. By the time the profit sharing clause kicks in, we'll be up 35%, and by contract end, 38% from where were were three years ago. I like the short term of this contract. Three years from now we could be up over 50% from three years ago. That's huge. It's my humble opinion that you restore the profession in bits and pieces, like we are witnessing now. Not in a grand-slam shot-heard-around-the world. As great as that would be, that's not going to happen.

Now this part cracks me up: For years, were were insanely jealous of SWA wages. We wanted them! On our last signing, we were ****ed-off that it was going to take THREE YEARS to reach 737 parity with SWA. At that same time three years ago, they started negotiations with their company as well. They still don't have a deal, and we're fixin' to exceed their rates by a large margin. As well we should, dammit! But don't get mo wrong, let them get a contract that exceeds ours again, so we can exceed theirs again, ad infinitum.

So in closing, thanks for listening. I know that most on this forum will disagree, and in fact there's a thread wondering if yes voters are a silent majority, because yes voters just aren't posting. Well here you go! And again, if all of the aforementioned reason I mentioned don't work for you, then by all means, vote NO. If this T/A is turned down, it's not the end of the world. We'll just re-group, and maybe get a better deal, or maybe be like SWA and not have to worry about ANY deal for the next three years.

Cheers,

Woofers

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44 (Post 1910803)

SUMMARY of his post: I am voting yes because my hourly rate will be higher with TA than without.

Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez (Post 1910945)

At least he's honest about that. He is within his rights to vote as he sees fit and his logic no matter what it is is no less valid than any of ours. I applaud his courage to come on here and state as such and his reasons for doing so.

Originally Posted by newKnow (Post 1911135)

Yes. He is within his right to vote as he sees fit. But, just like with politics, we hate it when people vote when they are uninformed.


So, with that in mind, is I t really ok for him to say he's going to vote in favor of the TA, because he will have higher pay rates, if he doesn't know that 5.74% of his January 1, 2016 "pay raise" will be paid by his loss in his profit-sharing?

Don't you want him to at least know that BEFORE you applaud his logic?

I do.

Originally Posted by LeineLodge (Post 1911184)

I'm guessing the OP did the same math that I have done and realized that the profit sharing is not being "lost" but rather converted to pay rates that we will get whether Delta makes a profit or not.

Now if you are saying that it should be more or that we should have kept both, I agree but that isn't the choice I'm faced with right now. It's a decision between what is on the table and the possibility of going back for more, with no guarantee (or likelihood IMO) that we will significantly outpace the $ on the table to an extent that it justifies the risk of the $ in hand.

Now if your thing is the FO trip pull issue then that is separate from the $, and I can understand where you're coming from.

On straight $ though, the math and probability do not favor us doing better by sending it back. It's not FUD (as I'm sure I'll be accused of in the subsequent posts) it is basic math that would require a relatively quick, better deal.

My guess is most yes voters have done this math and come to a similar conclusion.

The next consideration is how a yes or no will play out when the profit rocket changes trajectory. Will we make billions in profit forever? Maybe, maybe not. The PS conversion puts $ in my account as if we made $6B every year whether we do or not.

I want it to be more too, but that isn't the decision we're making now. The choice is:

Yes I'll take the deal

OR

No I'll take door #2 which allows me to keep all my trips* in the PBS run but will possibly/probably result in less $ IMO


* I keep mentioning this because it is the only issue I have with the TA. The rest is overblown, mostly because it is being painted in a negative light by the NO sales team. I am specifically referring to sick, profit sharing and scope. I'm satisfied with all 3 of those topics. FO trips not so much but I will probably get over it weighed against the rest of the positives.

Flame away! :p

Originally Posted by Scoop (Post 1910318)

Here is the biggest flaw in your logic. You (and apparently DALPA) assume Delta in intransigent and accept them at face value when they say "This is our last and best offer - take it or leave it."

Well the company has already yielded on the three year look-back concerning sick leave. So just supposing there was not a outcry over this TA (there is) we would have approved the TA and would be stuck with a 3 year look-back. We haven't even voted yet and the company has already backed off its "Last and best final offer." Imagine what we might be able to obtain with a resounding No vote?





Finally - Thanks for posting. Its good to see the logic of some of the yes voters even though I think you are wrong.

Scoop

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1911198)

Leine,

All work rules are interrelated. Straight pay rates do not necessarily mean you will make more money. This TA is a paycut (more accurately a W2 cut) for me and many others. There are no positives that I can hang my hat on.

There are some crumbs, yes. But, the 8% isn't even one of them.

No way, no how is this TA a gain on anything but spun costing using the most favorable conditions. It's a loss and should never have been TA-ed.

I'm guessing by flame away, you are dismissing the various rep letters who have said the same things as me.

$5,000,000,000 buy back (a waste of money) and I hold 30,000 shares of delta stock. I am a Delta pilot first and a shareholder second.

This TA is absolutely a sellout. If this was war, these reps and shadow MEC members would be lined up against a wall, blindfolded, given a cigarette and shot.

They are traitors. Period.

Originally Posted by Klondike Bear (Post 1911222)

That might be a little harsh. I would say hard labor for life would be more appropriate. Send them to the Gulag!