Thank you MOTOJOE I admire your intergrity, character, fortitude, and solidarity. Thank you for letting me grab hold of the ladder.

 

Which is exactly why I'm voting yes. It's a good deal with a short duration. We lock in the gains and keep moving. The math doesn't favor waiting it out for a significantly better deal. I'll take my 21.5% over 3 years and be happy to do it again in 2018.

 

Wow and ISIS might be able to nuke us tomorrow. Weak reasoning in my mind. Once you give in, you will never get it back. The reduced PS, changes in verified sick leave, and OE/LCA is a game stopper. If you feel that people are abusing sick leave and OE/LCA bidding, there are other ways to fix it.

With that, the first time you burn through your first 15 days of sick leave and they do not pay you due to the verification not being up to their standards, do not come crying on here. Same if you are not getting the lines you think you should. This is a bad deal and needs to be refined!!!

 

CG, what I don't understand is why you lament what happened post 9/11 with RJ flying expanding at the expense of mainline but don't consider that with this TA you make that just as plausible a thing to do today as it was then.

50-seaters were profitable on 09SEP11, they're not now and wouldn't be even with 9/11 2.0. What is profitable now and post 9/11 2.0 would be 76-seaters.

If 9/11 2.0 happened today and Delta needed to cut capacity, they could cut a large portion of it from mainline without touching DCI, thanks to where the ratio minimum is set with c2012.

And fwiw, with DCI's current fleet is the C2012 ratio is 1.35, post TA2015, it's 1.35. The 1.56 and new 1.81 are not in play. In June we're slated, according to DALPA, to be at 1.6 on the ratio, 1.35 is the min, so you could cut about 120 mainline jets and furlough and never see another DCI jet get parked.

Adding more 76-seaters makes DCI more profitable. The wisest thing we could have done to save transferring flying from here to there was to make them choke on their 50-seat fleet, instead, we let them expand their 76-seat fleet.

 

Well, you sure as hell not going to make enough hay to make cutting and baling worthwhile.

 

so youre selling out your QOL to do it. You assume youll be able to take the current schedule you have now and apply it to the new contract, ie multiple greenslips, great trips etc. If the LCA bidding does affect you, QOL goes down. Staffing issues addressed mean less greenslips. I wouldn't be surprised if your w2 is not as impressive as you expect. Theres a reason they want this contract done asap. And its not to put more money in your pocket and 10 more hours of vacation/training pay per year. haha

 

Yes but IF they take delivery of the 76 seaters they are allowed the min ratio goes up to either 1.56 (current max under the PWA) or 1.81 (Max under the TA.) It's a noose. It they want to pull tight, the noose tightens. Either deal provides us significantly better protections than what delta pilots had after 9/11 when they watch DCI grow at their expense. I don't want to go there again which is why the block hour ratios make sense.

 

if the economy tanks tomorrow, I'd much rather be working under our current contract than the proposed POS. I'm pretty sure the OP and some of the others in here are just ALPA plants trying to make it look like a few people actually support this thing.

 

Everyone's career here will be significantly damaged by the concessions in this TA. Read the TAFacts...it's all there and it's all accurate.

No, they're at risk of being LOST. Why? Because the global balance's minimum level (not shown in this TA) is lower than what we're now flying globally...thus allowing WB flying to be lost permanently.

No, the herd mentality exists inside the MEC administration and its "volunteers" like you. The rest of us are helping to develop documents like TAFacts to discuss the actual language.

TAFacts has no FUD...only facts. Verifiable facts found by reading the TA language. Now, how about the FUD on your side? P...E...B!!!

Carl

 

Whack a mole continues...a few posts ago you were worried about scope. I explained why I'm not concerned so now we're on to this - which is the biggest problem with the TA. Quite honestly I don't think its going to be as big of an impact as the NFW crowd is speculating. The very most junior line holders will feel it. It is a concession. I don't like it. However in the greater context of the deal I am willing to accept it because we all have choices except for the newest of newhires and even they will be senior in 6 months. What happens if the hiring/movement grinds to a a halt will be your next point right? Training will naturally slow down so the impact will ebb and flow.

You can call it selling out if you want. I agree it is the worst part about the deal, but I'm willing to go along with it because of the upsides in the TA and the fact that I don't think most guys will even notice the impact.