Notices

Latest From Jud Crane

Old 06-29-2015, 05:46 PM
  #1  
Line Holder
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 36
Default Latest From Jud Crane

Chairman’s Perspective—Jud Crane

So membership ratification (MEMRAT) voting has begun on the C2015 TA and will end on July 10 at 1100 PST. As I discussed in the last update, I voted NO at the MEC level on passing this to MEMRAT as I felt that given the institutional perspective I had as the Captain Representative and Chairman of C54, a member of the DALPA MEC, and as member of the ALPA National Board of Directors, the proposed TA (in aggregate) did not conform sufficiently to the respective mission statements and direction the Delta pilots had provided. That decision at the institutional level also demanded that, as a MEMRAT voter, I would also have to vote NO as a matter of ethical consistency, even though most of the problematic aspects of the TA would not significantly effect me due to seniority and retirement required in 2019. Again as I previously indicated, my disclosure of my votes is in no way intended to influence your individual MEMRAT vote as that must be based on your personal "kitchen table" discussion—you can either like it, live with it, or find it unacceptable based on your own criteria as that is exactly what MEMRAT is designed to accomplish.

Given my reservations, many of which were shared by others on the MEC, including YES voters, I submitted that part of the MEC communications plan include a pro/con document. This was rejected due to past history on the Delta property, even though I zealously suggested that college debating rules be adopted wherein the most fervent PRO adherent write the CON paper and vice versa. With that (in my opinion) unfortunate decision, it fell to individual councils to write their own opinions of the TA. Among them, C1, C20, C108, and C66 have written various pieces, some of which I have attached (with their permission) to provide some balance to the official material provided from the MEC administration in the form of



Negotiators’ Notepads, Contrails, and the like. I have personally vetted all of these pieces and, in some cases, provided edits. While I cannot state that I completely agree with every characterization made, overall, they do provide food for thought and consideration. Also I have attached two pieces from C44 that are essentially PRO pieces that are succinct and well written, though again, I might quibble with some of the representations. I apologize for not having been able to generate my own complete document to this point, but time pressure did not permit that during the first two week since the MEC moved to send the TA to MEMRAT.

A final note regarding the MEC vote: there is some controversy as to whether all those who voted to send it to MEMRAT felt that they were, in fact, endorsing the TA for approval by the membership as opposed to simply sending it on; this is really of interest only in an academic parliamentary sense (though I do feel it that does speak to MEC resolve and acceptance of responsibility as I understand it). Some YES voters state that the passage intrinsically indicates approval endorsement while others are not so inclined. Nevertheless, I would have been a NO vote in either case for the reasons mentioned above.

With all that, you have received a veritable Niagara Falls of information depicting the positive elements contained in the TA and the best light possible cast on those that I have referred to as "problematic" using the most charitable adjective I could think of regarding a number of elements. Again, I strongly suggest that you view and consider the TA in its entirety, though, if you are single-issue voter that is completely within your right.

Having spent all but the last few days in the SEA lounge and answering nonstop calls, e-mails, and texts, as well as running our LEC meeting on the 24th, I feel it is time for me to put in print some of my responses to questions regarding some of the most "popular" concerns I have been asked to address.





Scope

The TAJV includes a change from EASKs to block hours—I would, as a matter of principle, prefer to maintain the EASK metric as I believe that as we move forward with likely additional JVs, I feel it is a more accurate measurement of the activity we wish to protect. Regardless, this is something of a wash as that we do get a shortened measurement period and the markets we are primarily focused on are high-density international markets to slot-controlled airports so it is unlikely that even if Air France dropped an A380 into a pairing, Delta would waste their slot on a much smaller hull.

The E190 deal involving the conversion of 50-seat RJs to 70/76-seaters is similarly a wash if not a win of sorts as it does limit hull count, brings regional flying back to the mainline, and I frankly believe that due to the pilot shortage and overall economics, Delta will never be able to contract for the full allotment of 70/76-seaters to actually operate. Further, the mission of the E190s is a smart move that would likely be a sound addition to mainline revenues and feed—there is a caveat to be mentioned in Sec. 3. Also, I think it unlikely that the E190 could ever be considered a MadDog replacement.





Compensation

The one everybody pays attention to . . . Yes, we achieved "market rates," even "industry leading" by a given measure. However, we did so at the "expense" of profit-sharing conversion to a given extent. So let’s discuss profit sharing first:

The concept of monetizing Profit Sharing is intended to convert At-Risk compensation to certain remuneration. Compensation industry specialists generally recommend this if it can be accomplished at some premium and that was in fact accomplished. This is particularly attractive if a given plan is outside industry norms as ours is, a fact largely due to the history of how Delta’s was developed and the fact that nobody ever expected an airline to be so profitable (a tribute to Richard Anderson’s strategic plan and execution).

1) The first considerations are



mechanism and amount—those selected by the company and agreed to by the negotiators were to move the 20% trigger forward to the $6 billion threshold. What that equates to is a 5.74% "maybe" to a 6% "sure thing"—it is worth noting that if the PTIX is less than $6 billion, then a better conversion premium is realized and, of course, over $6 billion, we are back to 20%. However, this does fly in the face of basic established labor relations/trade union practice in which earned labor market rates are based on the actual labor performed. I was, in all honesty, prepared to accept some crossover, but felt that this was excessive.

2) Definitional changes including how PTIX is calculated in a couple aspects support monetizing a significant amount in that the addition of management compensation, bonus and security exchanges would likely reduce the future PTIX pool, as would dilution likely occur as the total employment of Delta increases without a parallel increase in revenue and thereby PTIX. Further, the fact that the company would utilize our contractual change to reduce payouts to the other employees puts us in a somewhat uncomfortable position with our colleagues. It also should be remembered that as a timeline’s horizon extends, the confidence level in a profit outlook has to decrease, though we certainly look promising for the next two years with the current geo-political/economic outlook.

The most significant definitional change, however, is the language in the proposed 3.B.4 (the "me-too" clause) that would have us compare our



total compensation to other pilot groups. I find this to be disingenuous to say the least. It is akin to saying an aardvark is to an apple as to an amethyst (animal:vegetable:mineral—yes I know an apple is a fruit, but you get the idea). The problem is that American does not have a profit-sharing plan, United does, but a different one, etc. This potentially limits our future negotiating capital.

Mention has also been made of the fact that the E190 rate is below widebody FO rates. Again, the company has chosen specific "industry metrics" to make their case, perhaps with some justification, but still an emotional issue for many of our pilots as well as a disturbing reminder of B-scale days. The rates are higher than JetBlue, the current industry leader, but then JetBlue is working on its first ALPA contract having just joined our Association last year.





Sick Leave

Well, here’s another major controversy. It is almost impossible to decide where to begin with this one. The company does have a problem from their perception and that means we have a problem. Early on, even prior to the beginning of negotiations, I had many conversations with various MEC members, Admin members, Negotiating Committee members, and even Flight Operations management. There is a need to address the problem of those who engage in questionable use of sick leave. There is also the fact that the current policy is one that the company wanted in C2012 – several of the "Big Data" issues the company has could be dealt with through fairly innocuous means, and perhaps, increased ALPA involvement through Pro Stans or something similar might be viable ways to reduce the problem. That is not the path that was negotiated down from the company’s initial proposal. From the establishment of a DHS who is an AME, to the complex addition of



work days, differing thresholds (including counting days off), lookbacks, increased use (and ease of requiring) of medical releases, well, I have to conclude that, perhaps, the primary intent was to increase confusion and your representatives’ and chief pilots’ workloads—though the latter was supposed to be reduced.

Ironically, only a week or so after the language was developed, the FAA issued an Advisory Circular (also attached) forming an Aviation Rule Making Committee (ARC) to address the fallout from the Germanwings incident. The charter of the ARC gives them six months to come up with recommendations that run the full range of the concept of a pilot’s "fitness to fly." As one of your Government Affairs Committee member’s, I do not think I can overstress the significance of this development. The subject matter and the focus ("Fitness . . .) are likely to transition to the NPRM level with probably the same impact that FAR 117 had on our work rules. I think it equally likely that it will eventually require revisitation of every sick-leave policy on every carrier in the industry. And, by the way, consider the concept of "Fitness" as it applies to the fatigue concept in FAR 117 and remember that Federal regulatory language loves and relies on precedent . . .

Essentially, I suspect that much of the proposed Sec. 14 will be found to be either dysfunctional and/or conceivably increase the liability of both the company and pilots as pilots elect to fly sick rather than subject themselves to triggering the various thresholds. It is also unprecedented in my memory to have proposed changes and/or language "clarification" during a TA ratification vote. I am told that the company has subsequently informed ALPA that the lookbacks will only go back to June 1, 2015, for starters, that the AME will be "unlicensed," and that HIPPA concerns will be protected by a side letter (not an LoA – but a letter to Admin). Again, I have to include that this was an ill-considered and incompletely vetted set of concepts advanced by the company.

While I agree that the company has a right, even an obligation, to deal with "abusers," I truly don’t believe this is the most positive method available and one has to wonder exactly why the company is so insistent on more restrictive and punitive measures when we currently have "good faith" provisions and Sec. 15 in the current PWA that remain unchanged.

To be sure, there are positive changes and there are others beyond those mentioned above that are, to use my most used qualifier,



problematic. The attachments touch on most if not all of these.

Finally, the question of what if the TA is rejected is another ever-popular one. Various sources have made the more than questionable claim that rejecting the TA would send us inexorably to mediation and at the back of the queue behind a number of other carriers. I simply do not believe that. To begin with, it is hardly plausible that one can have a "last, best, final offer" contingent on a date six months ahead of the

amendable date when one can’t even apply for mediation until 90 days after the amendable date. That hardly constitutes "good-faith bargaining," something the NMB and other legal entities are rather picky about. Discussions of Presidential Emergency Boards (PEB) is beyond premature (I spoke to Mike Donatelli concerning that).

Several facts are indisputable. We are in a business relationship with the company. We are strategic partners. The company has a strategic plan with strategic goals. The current Profit Sharing plan with the 20% trigger at $2.5 Billion remains an issue for corporate concerns. The need to be seen as bargaining in good faith exists for all parties. An interesting side note to that is a recent



Barron’s article put forward the notion that the new TA, if ratified would save the company some $50 Million or better over the next two years (after costs and Profit Sharing savings were computed). The RLA requires the previous contract to remain in place until self-help is possible which is years away. The reality is that it would not take much to make most of these problematic issues evaporate.

We are in a business relationship with a business. Removing emotion and ego from the equation should raise the probability of an equitable, and more comprehensive, solution to our mutual concerns.

Back to sick leave: Be aware that the FAA has changed the suspense times (



no fly) of several medications recently, including such popular OTC drugs like Benadryl (now 60 hours before flight) and Robitussin DM (or any cough medicine containing dextromethorphan, which is now 48 hours). Check with your doctor, AME, or AMAS with any questions. Also, be aware that the use of sick leave adjacent to vacation, after denied PDs, etc., raises a red flag with Flight Operations management. Do Not use Sick Leave unless you are not Fit to Fly!

Finally, as always, Back the PAC (going to need it as mentioned above), and note that Norwegian is back looking for authority to fly from the United States to Caribbean destinations—as long as you are voting on the TA, do the Call to Action while you are on the MEC website.

Given the nature of the primary topic before us, the fact that I greatly distrust "group think and speak," I have elected to provide the other C54 officers the opportunity to express their thoughts unedited below. I will add that I do not believe that dissent is to be discounted due characterization as being automatically false, overly emotional, or suspect due to origin—democracy does not work that way and serious, comprehensive questions demand serious, comprehensive answers.

Remember to vote early and vote often, but only the last vote counts. If you feel you have been given misleading or false information or a sales job for either a YES or a NO vote from any ALPA source, or have difficulty voting, I need to hear about it and I will hold people accountable. I understand that there will be a webinar posted on the MEC website for those who missed our LEC meeting on the 24th and the Roadshow on the 30th. As always, call/email/text with any questions and concerns.

A quick final note: I just spoke to Herndon this morning (Monday, June 29) and confirmed that Votenet, an independent company contracted by ALPA vice the old BallotPoint system, is handling and (according to Votenet)



accurately tallying the votes.

They acknowledge that the confirmation e-mails have been (and continue) to be a problem that they (Votenet) are working on. Apparently, they are getting bounce back from some ISP servers, in particular, Comcast was mentioned.

Greg Rizzuto, the MEC Secretary, is aware of the problem and is working from the ATL end as well.

Fly safe and professional, folks—we are all counting on each other now and will need to do so in the future.

Vice Chairman’s Perspective—Chris Gaddis

Please continue to inform yourself about the tentative agreement in front of you. Please vote before the window closes at 1100 (Pacific) on July 10.

Ways to best inform yourself over the next days include calling one of us, speaking with one of us in the lounge, attending a road show (SEA is June 30, 1:00 p.m. at the SEATAC Conference Center), and reading all of the material available from other councils and the MEC communications committee.

At this point the onus is on each of you to vote on this TA. If it passes, we have an industry leading Pilot Working Agreement. If it fails, we continue ops normal under our current PWA.

Take the time to measure each section of the TA. If in totality it meets your professional expectations going forward, vote yes. If it does not, vote no.

As always, fly safe, be professional, and consider this vote in as businesslike a manner as possible.

Secretary-Treasurer’s Perspective – Roger Goodwin

I’d like to thank those of you who were able to attend the Seattle LEC meeting on Wednesday, June 24; we had 45 participants and a lively debate. It was time well spent.

The MEC Resolution on the Contract 2015 Tentative Agreement (TA),



was not ratification or approval of the TA by the MEC. It was a vote to approve sending the TA for member ratification. (MEMRAT) The resolution passed 11-8 forwarding the TA to the pilots without an endorsement from the MEC. This leaves the responsibility to weigh the merits of the agreement to the Delta pilots. The Negotiating Committee does, in fact, recommend the TA.

No doubt you are receiving plenty of information regarding the agreement. I encourage you to dig deeper and examine how this TA will affect our future. There are some improvements in C2015—reroute pay and FAA medical leave and the disability bank concept are an improvement from the previous contract; however, below are some of my concerns:

Pay Rates

—The pay rates do not meet Delta pilot expectations. The 2017 rates need to arrive by 1/2016

Scope

—Changing the metric on JV flying from EASK's to Block Hours gives the company more flexibility at the expense of wide body jobs. Using block hours, a 7ER aircraft would equal an A380. Our current contract using EASK’s means that same A380 equates to more block hours. This TA allows further erosion of the highest paying most senior jobs we have on an older fleet that will need to be modernized.

Scope

—The new scope language is worrisome here with regard to international flying. Witness the recent announced cancellation of the LAX-LHR and EWR-LHR flights this fall. Also the persistent rumor of a JV partnership with an Asian carrier would have significant consequences to the Pilot Group under the proposed scope language. Keep in mind the language in the contract is in there for a reason. It is intended to be utilized by the company to execute its business plan

Scope

—Giving the MEC Chairman alone the authority to allow foreign pilots to fly international routes in aircraft painted in Delta livery is irresponsible. "Delta paint/ Delta pilots" is not just a chant about RJ’s. Giving one person this much authority is setting a dangerous precedent

Scope

–Bringing the C190s on the property may help the company in numerous ways, but Delta pilots should not fund another aircraft type.

Profit sharing

—Great for the company, good for Wall Street, not a good enough trade for the pilots. How we trade our profit sharing affects the other employee groups. You have to wonder how much anger could be directed at us since we control their compensation. While our TA could allow trading profit sharing for pay, Delta management decides if the other employees will get a pay raise or pay cut. We should not be vilified for having a union or a contract that controls others compensation

Profit sharing

—Under this TA, management will deduct securities benefits from the profit-sharing pool before it is distributed to employees. We would now have more than an emotional reason to be wary of huge

stock grants to executives; it would be coming out of our paycheck directly. Wall Street is already calling this a zero sum or better contract for the company. Sound familiar? That is because the give-backs in profit sharing, sick leave and productivity negates the pay increases pilots tend to focus on

Sick

—Apparently, sick leave abuse by a few has delivered a policy more onerous for all. I had hoped we were moving away from a threat-type approach to dealing with pilot’s health, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. In C2015, once you have used 14 days of sick leave you likely will find yourself in a constant verification process due to the nature of the 12-month and 3-year lookbacks (starts 6/1/2015). There is no longer self-verification of a illness you may have. You have lost a choice of managing your own health and when you need to see a doctor. Consequently, this new sick-leave policy will cost us more as we now have to pay out-of-pocket costs to verify a head cold or other minor illness that prevents us from flying. We could possibly see a larger burden of health-care-sharing costs switch to us in later years, since we are going to the doctor more often. Let us hope this doesn’t encourage pilots to fly sick due to the verification requirements. The FARs and the dispatch we all sign is clear about fitness for duty.

Let us consider the timing. This TA has arrived six months early. In the meantime, the company has announced a $6B stock buyback plan while we were in negotiations. The TA voting window has been shortened so that it will close before second-quarter results are announced in July. I don’t think either of those events are a coincidence. Clearly, the C2015 TA illustrates the company’s opinion of us, and where we fit in the big picture. In the best revenue environment many of us have ever seen, does an 8% signing bonus July 1, funding your January 1, 2016, raise from profit sharing, and then two 3% cost of living raises adequately capitalize on the opportunity before us?

If the TA doesn’t pass, I don’t think we are heading to the NMB. Fear is hardly a good reason to vote yes. Many of the company wins in this TA relate to staffing and productivity increases. The company needs relief in these areas going forward and the profit-sharing trade placates Wall Street and sets the stage for the other employee groups. After a cooling-off period, I envision the company reengaging. We are fortunate to have the best management team in the business and I am confident we can find a way to work together to find an agreement that both sides will benefit from. We have an engaged and intelligent pilot group and I am confident the Delta Pilots will make an informed decision.

Fraternally, Captain Jud Crane

Chairman

[email protected]

425-301-1298





Captain Chris Gaddis

Vice Chairman

[email protected]

206-954-4871





First Officer Roger Goodwin

Secretary-Treasurer

[email protected]

425-894-
Stoutflier is offline  
Old 06-30-2015, 09:05 AM
  #2  
Snake
 
Joined APC: May 2015
Posts: 242
Default

Wait a minute, so he voted in favor of shortening the voting window (Schnitzler was the lone nay vote), and then he *complains* about the shortened window in this rag?

The vote was about whether or not the pilots would get some retro pay pending acceptance of the deal. No July vote, no early raise. But he's suspicious of the timing. RIGHT.

On the day of the TA vote, he gave a rambling speech in open session about his "enviable position" of being able to cast a vote without concern for the consequences, and said he was only voting against it for political exigencies. This is overcomplicated tripe.

Some other whoppers:

"I don’t think we are heading to the NMB."

Really? Our position with this TA is market or better. Why would anyone believe that DAL would want to soften up? They didn't soften up after Stevens went on a fishing trip instead of engaging on the JCBA. $250 million later, the lesson was pretty clear.

"After a cooling-off period, I envision the company reengaging."

It's nice when you come up with outcomes that happen to be the most favorable to your interests. Again, WHY? Why would the company ignore the market forces in industry pattern bargaining that have just as much of an effect for work rules and sick as they do for compensation? They have an unassailable position in three-way talks, and there are many examples of how to run an airline profitably with disaffected, angry pilots at the controls.
rube is offline  
Old 06-30-2015, 09:24 AM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,184
Default

Originally Posted by rube View Post
Wait a minute, so he voted in favor of shortening the voting window (Schnitzler was the lone nay vote), and then he *complains* about the shortened window in this rag?

The vote was about whether or not the pilots would get some retro pay pending acceptance of the deal. No July vote, no early raise. But he's suspicious of the timing. RIGHT.

On the day of the TA vote, he gave a rambling speech in open session about his "enviable position" of being able to cast a vote without concern for the consequences, and said he was only voting against it for political exigencies. This is overcomplicated tripe.

Some other whoppers:

"I don’t think we are heading to the NMB."

Really? Our position with this TA is market or better. Why would anyone believe that DAL would want to soften up? They didn't soften up after Stevens went on a fishing trip instead of engaging on the JCBA. $250 million later, the lesson was pretty clear.

"After a cooling-off period, I envision the company reengaging."

It's nice when you come up with outcomes that happen to be the most favorable to your interests. Again, WHY? Why would the company ignore the market forces in industry pattern bargaining that have just as much of an effect for work rules and sick as they do for compensation? They have an unassailable position in three-way talks, and there are many examples of how to run an airline profitably with disaffected, angry pilots at the controls.
25%+ of the profits going to the employees in bonus payments. There's your catalyst.
BenderRodriguez is offline  
Old 06-30-2015, 09:42 AM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
newKnow's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Default

Originally Posted by rube View Post

....It's nice when you come up with outcomes that happen to be the most favorable to your interests. Again, WHY? Why would the company ignore the market forces in industry pattern bargaining that have just as much of an effect for work rules and sick as they do for compensation? They have an unassailable position in three-way talks, and there are many examples of how to run an airline profitably with disaffected, angry pilots at the controls.
Rube,

You are a 767 FO. Go look at the NYC open time trips on the board. Then go see what the reserve coverage is.
newKnow is offline  
Old 06-30-2015, 09:53 AM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 4,116
Default

the share of profits going to employees is probably the most significant 'metric' this management group is trying to mitigate.....im sure none of them is going to want the record of payouts on their linkden profiles..
BobZ is offline  
Old 06-30-2015, 10:03 AM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
poostain's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 351
Default

The SEA FO rep CG really fails in this process. Nothing but a small paragraph telling us to vote YES for industry leading or vote NO for current contract. REALLY? no reasoning, no breakdown, nothing. Jeez thanks for the advice Chris.
poostain is offline  
Old 06-30-2015, 08:34 PM
  #7  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Posts: 335
Default

Originally Posted by Stoutflier View Post
Chairman’s Perspective—Jud Crane

I voted NO at the MEC level on passing this to MEMRAT as I felt that given the institutional perspective I had as the Captain Representative and Chairman of C54, a member of the DALPA MEC, and as member of the ALPA National Board of Directors, the proposed TA (in aggregate) did not conform sufficiently to the respective mission statements and direction the Delta pilots had provided.
Is Jud the rep who said he would vote no because he had the luxury of voting no, since he knew it would pass?
Falcon7 is offline  
Old 06-30-2015, 09:36 PM
  #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Denny Crane's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Default

Originally Posted by Falcon7 View Post
Is Jud the rep who said he would vote no because he had the luxury of voting no, since he knew it would pass?
How can you suggest that when what you quoted clearly states that was not the case?

Denny
Denny Crane is offline  
Old 07-01-2015, 02:31 AM
  #9  
La Familia Delta
 
ghilis101's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B-717 FO / C-17 AC
Posts: 2,467
Default

1. Profit sharing
2. Scope (JV)
3. Staffing problem

(the three huge reasons Jud is right about the company coming back to the table)

I will repeat these as necessary until you understand how amazing our leverage is. SWA and FedEx envy our position.
ghilis101 is offline  
Old 07-01-2015, 06:06 AM
  #10  
Back on TDY
 
Carl Spackler's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Default

Originally Posted by Falcon7 View Post
Is Jud the rep who said he would vote no because he had the luxury of voting no, since he knew it would pass?
Is Falcon7 the DALPA paid keyboard warrior that consistently posts lies and innuendo about anyone who disagrees with the MEC administration?

Carl
Carl Spackler is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
SayAlt
Major
1
09-08-2015 06:34 AM
Zoomie
Major
36
01-28-2015 11:44 AM
iahflyr
Major
27
09-30-2014 09:04 AM
iarapilot
Cargo
34
04-24-2008 12:57 PM
skywarrior
Regional
3
11-02-2005 01:16 PM

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