Wow, what horribly written language with no foresight. It's like whoever did that was playing bingo while the company was playing chess.

Who wrote that language? It's horrible.

 

I really hope they do that.
All remaining doubt about management's true intent would be erased.

If they want labor risk we will show them labor risk.

 

The language says "If, during any consecutive rolling 18-month period." A single raise in DEC may be the course they choose, however will they give bonuses only to other employees indefinitely going forward? I doubt it, within the following 18 months at least 30% will get a raise.

If in fact your management theory is correct, our union will have grounds to grieve the lack of involvement based on the specific attempt to alter status quo. The resolution to grieve as a group is already written and only requires the MECs support. This would be based on managements actions and the timing would probably be about 4/1/2016 the 8 year historical precedent being on that date. Even if this is unsuccessful the 2016 raise is comparable to the TA, 0. Once this is completed the following years will be very contentious bringing labor issues back as leverage because raises were given to all the already previously restored workgroups putting them well above prebancruptcy rates while one group (us) is excluded. The following 2017 is likely to have at least 30% of the workgroups receiving an increase in that year or 18 month rolling period, and so on.

The TA 3% for 2017 is where you could potentially lose the first 3% but there's a fix for that too. That is 16 months from now and will probably have negotiations closer to finalization if not already done. The 8% for concessions is all you will have lost assuming no retro pay.

 

Lets have this conversation again each April going forward.

 

That's fine, but for the sake of argument lets say...

In February of 2016 the FAs start another organization drive, perhaps with our assistance. That puts 2 front line labor groups in negotiations during this time frame. Lets also assume they get at least a 3% raise for not organizing in 2016.

The domestic work force is 80,000 employees. The non-pilot domestic work force is 80,000 - 12,750 pilots or 67,250. 30% of 67,250 is 20,175.

Question: How many FAs do we have?
Answer: 20,250 from a new hire intro memo.

We could get an additional 3% not in the TA for 2016, but 2017 is more realistic.

2017 - rinse, repeat
2018 - rinse, repeat

 

Spotted on Virginia Ave yesterday:

 

I don't follow this.

If there's a raise given within a consecutive 18 month period, a review is triggered. Having a review done in April does not preclude another review done in (say) December. As of the April review (and the resultant .55% raise), the 18 month clock got reset. If 30% or more of the non-pilot, US-based employee groups get a raise(s) within 18 months (whether that happens in December in one shot, or, say, 15% get a raise in Dec and another 15% get a raise in Feb), that will trigger a review.

What am I missing?

 

Labor risk? Like...

 

notenuf, here is a question:

What was the intent of the language?

Second question:

According to Rockymtn88pilot, who is pro all things DALPA, does the language achieve what it was intended to achieve?

Third question:

Who wrote that language?

 

1. The intent was to ensure we are included in the recovery after bankruptcy. As the company and industry recover and wages at Delta rise we would have a backstop for parity with our peers within the industry and within the company.

2. It previously was a non issue because we were ahead if the UA and AA pilot rates and the average was below our rates at the time. As of 4/1/2015 we were below the industry average rates by .55% with the new AA deal. On 1/1/2016 we will be 3% below that average. The direct answer to your question is yes. It already has which is the precedent going forward.

3. The language originally appeared in the Delta bankruptcy agreement. The language was crafted by the negotiators for that agreement and then carried forward in successive agreements. I am sure there was never a thought as to how it would benefit us because those contracts were sold as industry leading and that clause would not apply.

See the website below. Take some time to understand the slides. It's all in there. There is real risk changing these clauses going forward.