newKnow

Ok. I'm your Huckleberry....

Let's start with the first allegation and go from there....

From the letter:

While the author aggressively attacks the accuracy of the claim of the 4% offset, he never disputes the fact that there was at least SOME offset of the initial 8% raise by the concessions. His only claim seems to be that the original poster can't prove it's exactly 4%.


Do you and the former council chair really think it mattered to the pilot group whether or not the 8% raise was offset by 4%, or 1%, ummm because we didn't.


The fact is, the 8% raise WAS offset by numerous concessions. (Sick leave changes, JV language, LC/FO flying, productivity increases, etc.). That's all that mattered to any of us.

Personally, I can come up with numerous reasons why, for most of us, the 8% raise would have been gobbled up by the other concessions in the TA. But, I won't get into it right now. But, if you want me to, I can.


Your wait is over. So, let's go....

forgot to bid

Good question Newk.

If the concessions were not a -4%, then what were they? -3? -5? -1?

Or do they claim they were 0? I think they claim sick leave was 0 because it was ending sick abuse and that's just a win for everybody. They'll probably claim the OE thing only affected 30 pilots so big deal there, I mean it's time pilots making $250,000 came to work. And JV was a win so that's $0. Oh and more jumbo RJs, defiantly $0.

Doug Madsen

OK - let's take them one at a time.

Sick Leave - what did you lose here? The ability to call in sick (a lot) when you're not sick? You didn't lose any sick leave credit hours. You didn't lose the value of pay for using any sick leave. You simply may be required to provide some proof that you're actually eligible to use this benefit. Is that so unreasonable? And what about the improvements in this area? FAA leave, disability bank, improvements to psychiatric benefits. Isn't it quite possible that those improvements exceeded any perceived concession of the sick leave language?

JV language - what about the improvements in scope? Increased fragmentation protection, improved affiliate language, DCI fleet reduction, block hour ratio? Isn't it quite possible that those improvements exceeded the perceived value of the JV language change?

LC/FO and other productivity increases - what about all of the improvements in work rules? Reroute, end of month carryover improvements, vacation pay, CQ pay, reserve short call credit, etc. Isn't it quite possible that those improvements exceeded the value of the LC/FO change?

And back to the core issue - so, it doesn't bother you that a local council, despite being briefed extensively on all of the exact costing of the various issues, makes a claim that is no where near reality? While simultaneously ignoring the offsetting improvements in each of these areas?

Next?

Sputnik

I had arranged a long block of time off, and of course got sick for all of it. This just happened to occur when the TA was presented, so I read that part closely. I had a cold that lasted three weeks. I generally fly each week, under current system that would have worked out to about 63 hours sick, just about killing my sick leave balance as a new hire, but not even hitting verification trigger. Handy as I never went to a doc (worst cold of my life, but it was a cold). Under the TA that would have been 20 days sick, right past the trigger and four days from having to sign a med release.

I consider that a loss.

Bigger picture, I'm a privacy guy. I can't really imagine why the company would need any form of access to my medical records. Especially when the verification trigger is so low. The current PWA does allow for a med release, the trigger for which seem more than adequate to allow for investigation of abusers. So why lower the trigger so much? I'll skip the many conspiracy theories, but I personally didn't like it.

As for the 8 percent, I think it was offset somewhat by the concessions. But I didn't really care if it was or wasn't. To ME, 15 was overall a worse contract than 12. And that's how I voted.

Check Essential

Right there in a nutshell is why the Moakists are being voted out. SCOPE.

Nobody believes you anymore. With every contract and LOA and JV agreement you people give away more and more of our widebody flying and keep telling us how its an improvement. You allow more and more of the large RJs and tell us its an improvement because the company is parking 50 seaters.

We can't take any more of your "improvements".
Your ratios and balances are nothing but eyewash. They never work in our favor.
All you ever do is legalize whatever management is planning.

There's a new sheriff in town. Management will just have to deal with it.
This pilot group is not giving any further scope concessions.

Hank Kingsley

The change in sick leave, was it to stop abuse or increase productivity? If there wasn't really any change to the policy, then why did the company want it. I believe our opener was no change to sick leave.

I believe they incrementally measure sick leave and found that by making the average guy/gal jump through a hoop, we won't use it. Sick or otherwise.

It's about productivity. Less sick leave, less staffing required.

As far as the SLC guy, too many people I know have compared him to a female hygiene product for so long, there might be some truth to it. The letter confirmed it.

Ferd149

No, none of your improvements were worth the threat of a 3rd party company staffing the AME office who would verify your sick. I had long discussions about this with two reps who would/could tell me only that it wouldn't be Sedgwick. The only thing said about the office was that the AME and the record keeper would be Delta employees.....no one else. We were either looking at a contractor who would tie us up in paperwork just to get your sick leave paid, or ALPA and the company flat hadn't worked out the logistical details.

Also, I had a State sick that used up 12 days this year so far. So, under the TA I would have had to get a verification for any and all headcolds etc for the remainder of the year......yeah thats user friendly.

The gains you talk about for sick leave were just spraying deodorizer on a turd.

Anyway, my take on it.........

It's done........time to move forward.

Ferd

Purple Drank

Somebody tell Mike Hanson, I mean Doug Madsen that the TA failed.

Why does he keep trying to sell it? Does he know something we don't?

Are we going to see a repackaged version of this **** show in TA2 next week??

newKnow

DM,


Sick Leave - The change in the sick leave policy was designed to alter every pilots sick leave usage, not just the abusers. It would have caused a lot of pilots to come to work sick, or hurt, when they otherwise would not have.

Pilots don't like approaching limits, pilots don't like filling out forms, and above all else, pilots don't like having to go to their doctors and signing releases to allow their medical records to be reviewed, as if we were common thieves.

I doubt that the improvements you mention add up to the trips pilots would have flown that otherwise they should not have.

JV Language -- I'll let Check E's post speak for me on this one.

LC/FO & other productivity concessions -- The LC/FO concession and other areas of the TA were designed to substantially increase our productivity, which would have resulted in less premium flying for the guys I'm flying with. It's highly unlikely your improvements would offset the amount of greenslips flying out every day.

And back to the core issue -- No, their claim doesn't bother me. In fact, I think the 4% estimation is probably a little low. If anything, I felt and still feel mislead by those who were pushing for the TA.

Even now, look at you and the things you list as positives without telling the whole story. Vacation pay (but not credit). Reserve short call credit (against the guarantee.) Disability bank (40 hours for every 80, then when you use it, 50% of the product of 80 hours multiplied by the pay rate).

Look at the other things you list as positives, that as a result of the TA, will almost never will be applied. Remember C2012? I still look at the OPEN RESERVE DAYS link in ICrew and laugh.

So, to sum it up, what bothered me was the way the TA was half presented by the MEC. At least the dissenters presented PRO/CON papers. You side only presented PRO. And even though the vast majority of pilots indicated they say plenty of con's, you are still doing it.


Next?

Ferd149

And.......just to piggyback on New's point, the LC/FO provision was a flat out abrogation of seniority. Either we live by seniority or we don't, it's really that simple.

When you address New's comments, would you please explain why the company didn't just try and reestablish recovery obligations. That made more sense than the overly complex PBS solution.

And NO.......I'm not advocating recovery obligations

Ferd