Thanks Moto,

I only have about another 10, but I wish to leave this contract at least as good as I found it, hopefully better.

 

GC,

Tailspin? Parking lot fight club?...really?

Open your eyes, actually look at the TA...its concessionary. The company has literally given us the finger, and mind you every other work group at our company. How is next? We have been working our butts off since the merger to bring Delta out of a very dark place. I respect RA very much BUT...this is all wrong. And I have lost a huge amount of respect for him. The NC should have walked in the day after the buy back / dividend increase was announced and unfolded the WSJ and dropped off OUR TA and just said here is where you sign!

It's not your yes vote that I care about it's the others you will influence with your reasoning and mis-guided logic. GC the TA is terrible! Open your eyes and see the forest through the trees.

 

Called out to the parking lot by a Coastie. I'm not quite sure where that may fall in fears. Oh yeah zero because it's the Internet and he is actually a professional and would think twice before losing his job.

 

I like what someone said, this TA is a brilliant move by the company.

What they did was completely overreach and go hard on the NC and MEC knowing they'd fold. And they did.

Then get it to the pilots knowing the MEC would sell it and pilots will more than likely vote anything approved by the MEC in and anything with Section 3 raises regardless of that cost increase being funded elsewhere.

But if the pilots don't vote in the TA, settle for something less, but, that would still be or near cost neutral. The pilots won't say no twice. The Board will congratulate EB on a job well done and he gets the nod to replace RA.

The key to his success was of course going up against a union administration that in no way shape or form was going to stand up, say no thanks, and walk out. Dang, makes me want to be in management but the road there from P2P to committee to rep to committee to the GO just looks like it'd take too long.

 

Scoop - No problem with voting your conscience.

 

That would be plausible enough, except it relies on the idea that there is no oversight of the administration by the MEC. You'd think 19 people would see right through it, and not send the negotiators back in. I think (I could check) they sent them back in 3 times.

I like the (C48?) communications on this topic. I think they're probably the most balanced of all, and probably the most realistic. They take the concept that what's here is all the company was willing to offer at face value.

Had they walked, some would have accused them of not getting a deal for the MEC to consider. Had the MEC AirTraned this, and turned it down, we would have gone ballistic for not giving us the vote.

My personal sentiment is that the company is playing hardball indeed. In hindsight, I have no idea how I ever expected anything else. Now we're having to come to terms with the fact that they pretty much decide how much to invest in an early/voluntary contract. I don't see anything they can't drag out for a very long time. We're a very, very long ways from being able to apply pressure we wouldn't get sued over.

So they're asking for a discount of sorts. Because they can.

What I think is happening here is that our expectations have collided with the company's expectations. The way we're describing it in my family is as a sort of grieving process. Pretending that we could have had a real bad-a$$ mo-fo in there who didn't blink, puts us square in the denial phase. Strangely comforting, but also not the truth.

I will admit to wanting to punch out the first guy I spoke with after the AMR TA, who said that they had just set our pay, +/- a couple. We sent IAV84DAL packing a few months ago. Now I'm actually pretty happy we did a fixed conversion on the lower end of the PS, but kept the upside protection.

I was always a little puzzled as to how it would be "on target", if it was early. Now I know. If only "on time" didn't mean about 29 months from now...

 

Had that conversion not been sold as a pay increase, I would have been right there with you. .26% is NOT a payraise.

 

I disagree. I was very alert to any double-counting in the road-show, and they were careful to be very explicit. I think they should refer to it as a partial, fixed PS conversion, because it's what it is. It's also good insurance in a downturn.

The PTIX definition change is proof they feel they have the leverage in an early negotiation, and is an irritant, but you're not correct that the conversion is being "sold as a pay increase".

As long as no one is double-counting, I actually think this is going to be an easy math exercise for most people. My #1 concern, by far, on the PS, was that the upside be protected in case Jerry is right (he's not an idiot). I like the fact we have protection if he's wrong (because Jerry doesn't know the future).

 

OK then, the question you have to ask is this: Do believe that a downturn during the term of this agreement is likely in this industry? If you do, then you are correct, that the conversion is the right thing to do. Or, do you believe that DAL is the best positioned in the industry, coupled with a 3 year deal makes the concern for a near term downturn a bit premature. I'll go with door number 2.

And in all the literature I read and all the highlight hitting paper, I see pay raises of 8/6/3/3. Where is the additional 5.74% conversion from profit sharing if it is not included in those numbers which are being sold as pay raises? There should be an additional number in there somewhere.

And since they are only doing road shows in major hubs, I will guess I have to take your word on what they are saying, but I can do math and there is double counting going on. I didn't even have to take my shoes off to figure that one out.

 

Yep. They want a discount. And we should give it to them why?