Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > Delta
UAL Council 11 Chairman on Delta TA >

UAL Council 11 Chairman on Delta TA

Notices

UAL Council 11 Chairman on Delta TA

Old 07-06-2015, 06:42 PM
  #11  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ImTumbleweed's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 328
Default

Originally Posted by forgot to bid View Post
So basically you guys are telling us Ual alpa sucks. So, they're saying ta 2015 sucks.

So how bad must ta 2015 be if even Ual alpa says it sucks?

I personally wish nothing but the best for Ual and aa and even swa and that Alaskan airline. Go forth and multiply. And please go get some good contacts. Thanks.
Agreed!

Wish nothing but the best for my UAL/AA/SWA/Alaska Bros!

For this contract, I say...

ImTumbleweed is offline  
Old 07-06-2015, 07:50 PM
  #12  
Gets Weekends Off
 
newKnow's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Default

Originally Posted by forgot to bid View Post
So basically you guys are telling us Ual alpa sucks. So, they're saying ta 2015 sucks.

So how bad must ta 2015 be if even Ual alpa says it sucks?
Funny, but true!
newKnow is offline  
Old 07-07-2015, 05:59 AM
  #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,224
Default

Originally Posted by Karnak View Post
Following a 30-minute sit-down with his Contract Administrator, I hope his public apology for getting almost all of this wrong is posted here, too.
I am told that the individual who wrote this is considered the TC of United airlines. He has often posted false statements. I am surprised he would post false items so easily verified as false. His section on lOA concerning medical plans is almost completely wrong.
I would hope the UAL pilots will hold him accountable for posting false information in the next election.
Can you imagine the outcry at UAL had our MEC members put out letters on UAL's last TA that crushed the hopes of pattern bargaining of them for this TA?
sailingfun is offline  
Old 07-07-2015, 06:58 AM
  #14  
Back on TDY
 
Carl Spackler's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Default

Originally Posted by sailingfun View Post
I am told that the individual who wrote this is considered the TC of United airlines. He has often posted false statements.
I'm told he's considered the sailingfun of United Airlines. Except he can spell.

Carl
Carl Spackler is offline  
Old 07-07-2015, 07:17 AM
  #15  
veut gagner à la loterie
 
forgot to bid's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Default

Originally Posted by Karnak View Post
Following a 30-minute sit-down with his Contract Administrator, I hope his public apology for getting almost all of this wrong is posted here, too.
Originally Posted by sailingfun View Post
I am told that the individual who wrote this is considered the TC of United airlines. He has often posted false statements. I am surprised he would post false items so easily verified as false. His section on lOA concerning medical plans is almost completely wrong.
I would hope the UAL pilots will hold him accountable for posting false information in the next election.
Can you imagine the outcry at UAL had our MEC members put out letters on UAL's last TA that crushed the hopes of pattern bargaining of them for this TA?
Alright, take a look and tell us which ones are false:

Originally Posted by Pilotfo64 View Post
A) it’s imperative to understand the fact that we are currently working in an industry which is experiencing unprecedented revenues and profits thought never to be possible at the turn of the century by most everyone. We also find ourselves in uncharted territory with respect to airline consolidation and new business models moving forward. It should be clear to all of us that this is “our time.”

B) Over the last few decades we have given a little, given a lot and then given more all in an effort to “help management” under threats of liquidation and fear of “losing everything” in a skewed bankruptcy process. All done while airline leaders filled their bank accounts from your pockets citing“ shared sacrifice, shared rewards.

C) ”It should be very clear to everyone that the concession stand is closed and it’s high time we start restoring our career and stop allowing management and the A4A to devalue the major airline pilot into extinction.

D) Sadly, this DAL TA continues a downward spiral of pattern bargaining which makes no sense whatsoever.

E) The DAL MEC voted 11-8 to approve this deal and it’s now out to the members for a vote. How this deal garnered 11 votes is unclear, because no rational thinking pilot who has been around this industry for the past few decades could vote FOR this with a straight face.

F) You’ll also find the full contractual language and a Barons financial article that does the costing of pilot pay raises vs lost profit sharing.·

G) Pay rates: the TA proposes an 8% raise on DOS and a 6% raise January 2016 and 3% per year for 2017 & 2018.

H) According to the Barons Article, Wall Street sees and increase cost to the company of $552 million for pilot pay rates but sees a savings of$600 million in profit sharing for the company in 2016 alone based on the agreed to reduction of profit sharing in this deal.

I) There may be an argument that exists which some pilots would be willing to trade profit sharing for increased hourly rates for a more predictable and stable source of income, even at a net loss which is proposed here for the 2016 (2017 pay out) profit sharing.

J) The flip side to this is that we are experiencing record profits and are on pace to keep making money due to market consolidation, so we risk not just the $600 million in 2016 but for years beyond as well.

K) Also, we don’t have to travel too far back in time when pilot pay rates were under great scrutiny and it’s sure to happen again in the near future. However, profit sharing doesn’t seem to rise to the same level of scrutiny: something to keep in mind.·

L) Profit sharing: this deal proposes a significant reduction in profit sharing.

M) Currently it’s paid out at 10% of pretax profits up to $2.5 Billion and then 20% for all profit above $2.5 Billion. The UAL agreement is similar but our step to 20% is at 6.9%profit margin which can be attained before reaching $2.5 Billion.

N) The DAL TA raises the 20% step to $6.0 Billion effectively removing the 20% benefit all together and reducing the PS significantly if profits continue as expected.

O) Last year the DAL pilots received roughly 17% of w2 earnings in PS.·

P) Scope and the Atlantic Joint Venture: DAL ALPA has allowed the company to “carveout” a joint venture from their scope section (a concession by itself) to allow them to “bundle” three partner airlines as one: Air France, KLM and Alitalia.This was done in April 2010.

Q) The terms of this agreement required DAL to fly a minimum of 48.5% of EASKs (Equivalent Available Seat Kilometers) as measured against the total ASKs of this JV.

R) Believe it or not, the compliance “look back”period was 3 years, and if out of compliance the company was given another year to come into compliance.

S) As you might imagine, management took full advantage of this deal and was out of compliance for 3 years only flying 47% of the ASKs: this is equivalent to 9 daily A330 DTW-AMS round trips: how many jobs is that ?Airplanes? Upgrades? QOL schedules?

T) What’s important to understand about joint ventures is that they are not code share arrangements even though they may include code share partners, rather an agreement to split total revenue from all operations at pre-determined amounts, many times regardless of who does the flying.

U) Remember the Air Lingus/United deal? In that case United did zero flying but was entitled to a certain share of revenue and maybe as much as 50% or more from that operation.

V) Our scope sections are the only protections we have against managements turning us into ticket brokers and DAL ALPA is giving away the house.

W) This DAL TA proposes additional concessions for this JV: they want to change the measuring stick from EASKs to Block Hours for starters. In other words an Air France A380 holds quite a bit more available seat kilometers than aDAL 767 or 757 but they each account for equal aircraft block hours.

X) If management is receiving their money from this JV regardless of the amount of seats they fly, then of course they’d like to change the measuring stick and have one of the three Joint Venture partners put the seats in the market.

Y) Not only has this been championed by the DAL negotiators, but they also allowed management to carve out any flights to and from the UK allowing all flights to/from the UK flown by all partners in this JV to be excluded from the minimum block hour measurement matrix.

Y1) A carve out from a carve out?·

Z) Scope and the 76 seat outsourcing: First it’s important to understand that manufacturers are building a 90-100 seat jet (Mitsubishi, Embraer, CRJ) and airline managements will be putting these into service because there is a gap in this market of aircraft between 76 and 100 seats that they are anxious to fill.

AA) There is no provision from any of the three major airlines to allow out sourcing of these jets (with the exception of AA that has grandfathered some 90 seat aircraft which USAirways had allowed).

BB) This TA allows the outsourcing of an additional 25 76-seat aircraft tied to delivery of 100 seat aircraft that are coming anyway?.

CC) This simply appears to be a give-away to management for no good reason: the union has never been able to control what type aircraft management decides to order as long as it complies with our scope section. It’s time to start recapturing our company’s flying and this is not the way to do it.·

DD) Sick Leave: this TA brings the entire sick leave section to 10 pages vs 3 pages in the United Pilot Agreement.

EE) There is a very onerous sick leave verification process currently after a pilot uses 100 hours per year of sick time that must be completed through the CPO.

FF) This deal brings down the verification threshold from 100 hours to 15 days missed and then shifts the verification process to an even more onerous process and a third party contractor!

GG) The requirements to avoid the verification process are verbose, confusing and read like a plan summary description of an Aetna insurance plan. The degradation to this sick leave policy is an embarrassment to trade unionism and nothing more than pilot pushing to fly while sick.·

HH) LOA 15-01 Excise Tax on Employer-Sponsored Health Coverage:
this is a significant give-away but not talked about much.

II) In short DAL ALPA has agreed to lower the pilot’s health care benefit to an amount equal to the company’s excise tax exposure on health care plans which hasn’t been determined yet. In return management has agreed to reimburse the tax savings to the pilots elsewhere in the contract. Example: you currently pay$500/month for a family health plan, but now could be paying $1,000/month for the same plan to help the company with their tax situation however this will be returned to you in other areas of the contract like longer downtown layovers and an extra bottle of water.

JJ) If this happens, not only will the United Pilots suffer the same fate, but all airline employees will suffer as well. While we’re on the health care thing; this TA also eliminates “co-insurance” (the ability to be covered by two separate company plans).

KK) United pilots had this as a benefit and lost it in BK.You will find some incremental increases in scheduling, per diem, vacation etc. but when compared to the significant concessionary approach to this deal, they seem mostly insignificant.

LL) There has never been a better negotiating environment for our union and never a more appropriate time to start the reclamation process of our careers. If we can’t stand up for our careers now; when should we?
forgot to bid is offline  
Old 07-07-2015, 09:00 AM
  #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Gets weekends off
Posts: 1,168
Default

Originally Posted by Purple Drank View Post
Hey, I think this TA is an embarrassment.

But what exactly did UAL do to raise the bar when they had the chance.
We had to fight against both management and CAL ALPA who was using our TA as a tool for their SLI hourly pay rates argument. Also since CAL had no work rules, just getting them on the UAL ALPA work rules cost a ton of money that couldn't be used to improve other areas.

You should think that not having a CAL-type contract out there for DAL management to point at and say "Hey look at their work rules" is a HUGE accomplishment, that's raised the bar significantly.
pilot64golfer is offline  
Old 07-08-2015, 10:41 AM
  #17  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Karnak's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Posts: 852
Default

Originally Posted by forgot to bid View Post
Alright, take a look and tell us which ones are false:
A) it’s imperative to understand the fact that we are currently working in an industry which is experiencing unprecedented revenues and profits thought never to be possible at the turn of the century by most everyone. We also find ourselves in uncharted territory with respect to airline consolidation and new business models moving forward. It should be clear to all of us that this is “our time.”

Wrong pronoun. UAL isn't in Section 6. DAL is. Your clock has stopped until you open. Even though we are all ALPA brothers, it's important to remember that we work at different airlines, with different cultures and priorities.

B) Over the last few decades we have given a little, given a lot and then given more all in an effort to “help management” under threats of liquidation and fear of “losing everything” in a skewed bankruptcy process. All done while airline leaders filled their bank accounts from your pockets citing“ shared sacrifice, shared rewards.

You're not wrong as much as you're whining. We chose the pain of concessions 10 years ago only because we deemed the alternative to be riskier. We're arguing over this while working at thriving airlines. Maybe a Braniff, TWA, Midway, or PanAm pilot has a different perspective. The fact that our lives depend upon choosing the least risky course of action while on the job should not be forgotten, even though sometimes fate hammers pilots anyway.

C) ”It should be very clear to everyone that the concession stand is closed and it’s high time we start restoring our career and stop allowing management and the A4A to devalue the major airline pilot into extinction.

"Everyone"? You sent this to LEC 11 pilots. I'm not sure any of them will have a vote on the Delta TA. Your management is not our management. I've got the W2 to prove it.

D) Sadly, this DAL TA continues a downward spiral of pattern bargaining which makes no sense whatsoever.

This is where your credibility leaves our solar system. As of a week ago, the book rate for our B767 is 12.3% above UAL's…and increases to 19% greater in 2018. If your VSI is showing that as "downward", call maintenance!

E) The DAL MEC voted 11-8 to approve this deal and it’s now out to the members for a vote. How this deal garnered 11 votes is unclear, because no rational thinking pilot who has been around this industry for the past few decades could vote FOR this with a straight face.

You're absolutely right here! It is out to the members for a vote. The rest is personal opinion about facial expressions.


F) You’ll also find the full contractual language and a Barons financial article that does the costing of pilot pay raises vs lost profit sharing.·

It's "Barron's".

G) Pay rates: the TA proposes an 8% raise on DOS and a 6% raise January 2016 and 3% per year for 2017 & 2018.

A rare glimmer of accuracy.

H) According to the Barons Article, Wall Street sees and increase cost to the company of $552 million for pilot pay rates but sees a savings of$600 million in profit sharing for the company in 2016 alone based on the agreed to reduction of profit sharing in this deal.

Ignoring "Wall Street's" ability to predict anything (2008 called, they said don't worry about a housing crisis or financial meltdown! All is well!), let's just focus on the fact that they assign the profit sharing savings to the entire company, but don't breakout the pilot portion. The pilots aren't losing $600m in profit sharing! We're converting a segment of it to pay rates. It's a shame that a rep for a major airline doesn't understand how the numbers work, or how stupid "Wall Street" can be at understanding them.

I) There may be an argument that exists which some pilots would be willing to trade profit sharing for increased hourly rates for a more predictable and stable source of income, even at a net loss which is proposed here for the 2016 (2017 pay out) profit sharing.

You'll have to show your math here. "Net loss" is wrong. Maybe if you'd chosen a category and a predicted PTIX for Delta, we'd be able to see which button on your calculator is broken.

J) The flip side to this is that we are experiencing record profits and are on pace to keep making money due to market consolidation, so we risk not just the $600 million in 2016 but for years beyond as well.

Whattya mean "we", paleface? Again, you're assuming the $600m estimated profit sharing "loss" is borne by the pilots alone, and not offset 1-for-1 (or better!) by the increasing pay rates.

K) Also, we don’t have to travel too far back in time when pilot pay rates were under great scrutiny and it’s sure to happen again in the near future. However, profit sharing doesn’t seem to rise to the same level of scrutiny: something to keep in mind.·

Here's what I keep in mind: Traveling back in time we see that pilots didn't ask for profit sharing in 2008 when the DAL/NWA MEC's got it for them. Now they seem to be so pleased with it, that follow-on merging pilot groups like UAL put it into their contracts too. You're welcome, Andy. Now stop using "we".

L) Profit sharing: this deal proposes a significant reduction in profit sharing.

Yes. For an equal increase in pay rates that pay out month-to-month.

M) Currently it’s paid out at 10% of pretax profits up to $2.5 Billion and then 20% for all profit above $2.5 Billion. The UAL agreement is similar but our step to 20% is at 6.9%profit margin which can be attained before reaching $2.5 Billion.

Different PTIX formula at UAL. That's how ours will remain more lucrative than yours.


N) The DAL TA raises the 20% step to $6.0 Billion effectively removing the 20% benefit all together and reducing the PS significantly if profits continue as expected.

So now you're predicting DAL won't be able to earn more than $6b? How come the posters here don't call you out on this? I've read predictions of $7b, $8b, and $10b by some of you. Are you guys waffling on that now? If DAL makes $10b PTIX in 2016, how does that hurt us?

O) Last year the DAL pilots received roughly 17% of w2 earnings in PS.

I wish. Closer to 15%, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for using "roughly" while overstating something if it makes your argument seem stronger.

P) Scope and the Atlantic Joint Venture: DAL ALPA has allowed the company to “carveout” a joint venture from their scope section (a concession by itself) to allow them to “bundle” three partner airlines as one: Air France, KLM and Alitalia.This was done in April 2010.

Nope. It was done before the Virgin JV, so it wasn't a "carve out".


Q) The terms of this agreement required DAL to fly a minimum of 48.5% of EASKs (Equivalent Available Seat Kilometers) as measured against the total ASKs of this JV.

Hey! You got one right!

R) Believe it or not, the compliance “look back”period was 3 years, and if out of compliance the company was given another year to come into compliance.

Two in a row!

S) As you might imagine, management took full advantage of this deal and was out of compliance for 3 years only flying 47% of the ASKs: this is equivalent to 9 daily A330 DTW-AMS round trips: how many jobs is that ?Airplanes? Upgrades? QOL schedules?

Bad math. A single daily A330 from JFK to AMS would've kept DAL in compliance. The fact that we augment at 8/12 instead of the 9/13 that Air France, KLM, and Alitalia (an UAL, Andy!) use…and that we use smaller aircraft, means we required more pilots per EASK. I wish we had a better mix of larger aircraft, but it's hard to argue with the profitability being generated by the fleet decisions of our marketing people. That is if we like profit sharing. If we don't, then stop bringing it up! If profit sharing is critical, then applaud profit generation. If it's not, then applaud conversion to pay rates. (except your lower rates, Andy)

T) What’s important to understand about joint ventures is that they are not code share arrangements even though they may include code share partners, rather an agreement to split total revenue from all operations at pre-determined amounts, many times regardless of who does the flying.

True! Now list the revenue sharing formula. Yes, it matters. If it's 50-50, it could be bad. If it's 90-10, then it could be really good. My understanding is that there is a huge benefit to hauling the pax on your own aircraft.

U) Remember the Air Lingus/United deal? In that case United did zero flying but was entitled to a certain share of revenue and maybe as much as 50% or more from that operation.

Remember how the DAL JV's with KLM, Air France, Alitialia, and Virgin Atlantic are different than the Aer Lingus deal you had? The difference matters.

V) Our scope sections are the only protections we have against managements turning us into ticket brokers and DAL ALPA is giving away the house.

A conclusion not supported by the facts. The facts in this case being the actual terms of the JV's.

W) This DAL TA proposes additional concessions for this JV: they want to change the measuring stick from EASKs to Block Hours for starters. In other words an Air France A380 holds quite a bit more available seat kilometers than aDAL 767 or 757 but they each account for equal aircraft block hours.

Actually, not equal. DAL augments better, so the ratio is favorable. The trans-Atlantic block hour basis assumes the 9/13 rules, but DAL uses 8/12. The block hour "measuring stick" means if something causes DAL to pull down a 757/767, Air France has to pull down a A330, B777, or A380.

X) If management is receiving their money from this JV regardless of the amount of seats they fly, then of course they’d like to change the measuring stick and have one of the three Joint Venture partners put the seats in the market.

Show me the formula for revenue sharing, then make this claim.

Y) Not only has this been championed by the DAL negotiators, but they also allowed management to carve out any flights to and from the UK allowing all flights to/from the UK flown by all partners in this JV to be excluded from the minimum block hour measurement matrix.

Ok, now I KNOW you're not in our solar system! KLM (Dutch), Air France (France), and Alitalia (guess!) operate to/from their own countries. Once they start allowing cabotage, and those cabotage flights operate with our code, I'll start worrying. In the meantime, UK flights are covered under a different JV with an airline called Virgin Atlantic. That JV uses a different "measuring stick" because they operate in/out of a slot-controlled airport in a different country.

Y1) A carve out from a carve out?

A bad conclusion based on faulty knowledge of the DAL contract and geography?

Z) Scope and the 76 seat outsourcing: First it’s important to understand that manufacturers are building a 90-100 seat jet (Mitsubishi, Embraer, CRJ) and airline managements will be putting these into service because there is a gap in this market of aircraft between 76 and 100 seats that they are anxious to fill.

Point?

AA) There is no provision from any of the three major airlines to allow out sourcing of these jets (with the exception of AA that has grandfathered some 90 seat aircraft which USAirways had allowed).

How come you don't use "we" when you refer to what the AA pilots are doing? Is THAT a "downward" spiral? They reached their deal after yours. Are you jealous of THEIR profit sharing? How does their British Airways JV work? What's their revenue sharing formula? How come UAL rates are lower than Americans? Are your complaints driven by unionism, or Widget-envy?

BB) This TA allows the outsourcing of an additional 25 76-seat aircraft tied to delivery of 100 seat aircraft that are coming anyway?.

Tied 2-to-1 with the aircraft deliveries, and with an enhanced ratio of 1.81:1 in system block hours, and a reduced hard cap of total RJ's flown by DAL connection operators.

CC) This simply appears to be a give-away to management for no good reason: the union has never been able to control what type aircraft management decides to order as long as it complies with our scope section. It’s time to start recapturing our company’s flying and this is not the way to do it.

Your contract allows 450 RJ's. Our TA allows 425. More "downward spiral", right?


DD) Sick Leave: this TA brings the entire sick leave section to 10 pages vs 3 pages in the United Pilot Agreement.

Pages? Your griping about the number of pages?

EE) There is a very onerous sick leave verification process currently after a pilot uses 100 hours per year of sick time that must be completed through the CPO.

I'd dispute "very" here because it doesn't appear to be reducing the use of sick leave at DAL. If it was truly onerous, then it follows that we could track its impact statistically.

FF) This deal brings down the verification threshold from 100 hours to 15 days missed and then shifts the verification process to an even more onerous process and a third party contractor!

15 work days. The "contractor" is the Director - Health Services. UAL has one of those guys, too. They're required on the airline's certificate to be in compliance with DOT regulations related to Drug/Alcohol testing. They used to be called "Medical Review Officers".


GG) The requirements to avoid the verification process are verbose, confusing and read like a plan summary description of an Aetna insurance plan. The degradation to this sick leave policy is an embarrassment to trade unionism and nothing more than pilot pushing to fly while sick.

DAL management sucks at managing sick leave. They're trying to make this a hassle. I think it's an embarrassment when a pilot gets caught flying in an airshow while on a sick call. It think it's embarrassing when the rest rules and qualification requirements for every single airline pilot in the country get changed because two Colgan pilots had a mishap. Maybe we should focus more on cause-and-effect trends than a TA that doesn't reduce the value of sick leave, and in fact adds some new benefits.

HH) LOA 15-01 Excise Tax on Employer-Sponsored Health Coverage:
this is a significant give-away but not talked about much.

It's not talked about much because nobody knows the rules yet! If you know the ACA and IRS definitions of "cadillac plans", and the triggers established for them, please post them immediately!

II) In short DAL ALPA has agreed to lower the pilot’s health care benefit to an amount equal to the company’s excise tax exposure on health care plans which hasn’t been determined yet. In return management has agreed to reimburse the tax savings to the pilots elsewhere in the contract. Example: you currently pay$500/month for a family health plan, but now could be paying $1,000/month for the same plan to help the company with their tax situation however this will be returned to you in other areas of the contract like longer downtown layovers and an extra bottle of water.

Can you post the section of the LOA that states we've agreed to lower the health care benefit? It's obvious you don't understand how tax obligations are being handled between DAL management and ALPA. For example, our life insurance benefit (mine is $676,000) is subject to excise tax, but it is paid by DAL. They pay me the cost of the tax, plus a bump-up to cover the tax on the money they gave me to pay the tax. I blame ALPA!

The LOA, had you bothered to read it, would explain what will take place once the rules are known. Until then, you're just wrong. And we already get the extra bottle of water!


JJ) If this happens, not only will the United Pilots suffer the same fate, but all airline employees will suffer as well. While we’re on the health care thing; this TA also eliminates “co-insurance” (the ability to be covered by two separate company plans).

I'm not sure about that. I know it eliminates the offset for income while on disability, which is a nice improvement, but I don't think co-insurance can be "eliminated".

KK) United pilots had this as a benefit and lost it in BK.You will find some incremental increases in scheduling, per diem, vacation etc. but when compared to the significant concessionary approach to this deal, they seem mostly insignificant.

"increases"? Keep tapping on the VSI and maybe it'll show the climb rate on the others.

LL) There has never been a better negotiating environment for our union and never a more appropriate time to start the reclamation process of our careers. If we can’t stand up for our careers now; when should we?

You're still using "we" in the context of a process you are not involved in. I understand your concerns about pattern bargaining as our deal could possibly relate to goals in your next contract. I hope UAL pilots leapfrog our contract between now and when we open again in less than 3 years. If history is an accurate predictor, we could have our next deal before yours is concluded. For now, it would be nice if you got your facts straight, and stop trying to interfere with our voting.
Karnak is offline  
Old 07-08-2015, 11:11 AM
  #18  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,184
Default

I don't GAFF what UAL thinks.
BenderRodriguez is offline  
Old 07-08-2015, 11:30 AM
  #19  
Works Every Weekend
 
Check Essential's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
Default

Karnak --
Wow. That took a lot of work.
I think you successfully pointed out that there is some "spin" in the United reps' critique of our TA. There is definitely some opinion mixed in there.
But I think you failed in proving it "wrong".
Check Essential is offline  
Old 07-08-2015, 12:19 PM
  #20  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,224
Default

According to the Barons Article, Wall Street sees and increase cost to the company of $552 million for pilot pay rates but sees a savings of$600 million in profit sharing for the company in 2016 alone based on the agreed to reduction of profit sharing in this deal.

Both numbers are wildly inaccurate. Pay raise for 16 is about 315 million. Potential loss of PS is about 126 million.

Not only Risk just the $600 million in 2016 but for years beyond.
Again total BS. Max potential loss is 126 million per year.


Scope and the Atlantic Joint Venture:
DAL ALPA has allowed the company to “carveout” a joint venture from their scope section (a concession by itself) to allow them to “bundle” three partner airlines as one: Air France, KLM and Alitalia.This was done in April 2010. The terms of this agreement required DAL to fly a minimum of 48.5% of EASKs (Equivalent Available Seat Kilometers) equivalent to 9 daily A330 DTW-AMS round trips:

The company came in 1.5% under the required number. Impossible for that to be even close to 9 flights.

Scope and the 76 seat outsourcing:
First it’s important to understand that manufacturers are building a 90-100 seat jet (Mitsubishi, Embraer, CRJ) and airline managements will be putting these into service because there is a gap in this market of aircraft between 76 and 100 seats that they are anxious to fill.There is no provision from any of the three major airlines to allow out sourcing of these jets (with the exception of AA that has grandfathered some 90 seat aircraft which USAirways had allowed). This TA allows the outsourcing of an additional 25 76-seat aircraft tied to delivery of 100 seat aircraft that are coming anyway

He implies we have allowed the bigger aircraft. We have not. How does he know the E190's are coming anyway? UAL was rumored to want the airframes also.

Sick Leave:
this TA brings the entire sick leave section to 10 pages vs 3 pages in the United Pilot Agreement. There is a very onerous sick leave verification process currently after a pilot uses 100 hours per year of sick time that must be completed through the CPO. This deal brings down the verification threshold from 100 hours to 15 days missed and then shifts the verification process to an even more onerous process and a third party contractor!

A third party contractor is not allowed and a simple note is not that onerous.

LOA 15-01 Excise Tax on Employer-Sponsored Health Coverage:
this is a significant give-away but not talked about much. In short DAL ALPA has agreed to lower the pilot’s health care benefit to an amount equal to the company’s excise tax exposure on health care plans which hasn’t been determined yet. In return management has agreed to reimburse the tax savings to the pilots elsewhere in the contract. Example: you currently pay$500/month for a family health plan, but now could be paying $1,000/month for the same plan to help the company with their tax situation however this will be returned to you in other areas of the contract like longer downtown layovers and an extra bottle of water.

This applies to only one health plan. DPMP which is contractual. If the Cadillac tax goes into effect and if this one contractual plan used by a very small percentage of the pilots exceeds the threshold then we have agreed to discuss easing the tax burden. Any increase caused on the pilot side must be returned to us. If no agreement then nothing changes. The medical plans used by the vast majority of the pilots are unaffected.
sailingfun is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
On Autopilot
Regional
22594
11-05-2021 07:03 AM
WARich
Delta
11220
06-10-2020 07:42 AM
Kilroy
ExpressJet
10671
01-11-2016 06:49 AM
WatchThis!
Mergers and Acquisitions
2
04-14-2008 07:25 PM
Sir James
Mergers and Acquisitions
2
04-14-2008 06:28 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