Talk to pilots outside of DAL. I personally know of two guys at AA, both won their lawsuits-- career earnings, full pension plus attorney fees.

 

Under a different section of the contract, yes it currently exists.

Big picture I ask myself this.......if they can ask for a medical release right now, why would they need to change the sick leave section in the contract?

 

SD explanation is on Delta net. Contract section of roadshow.

 

But what about 8%?

 

I listened and understand the argument for trading profit sharing for pay rates above and beyond negotiated pay rates. I was somewhat neutral on this issue during the failed TA. After giving it further and deeper thought, I'm deeply opposed to touching profit sharing.

Giving up PS for a premium on pay rates will last less than 1 contract cycle. We gave up PS in 2012 to boost pay rates. Now that premium isn't even being discussed to be added to negotiated pay rates. What we gave up in 2012 is gone, and gone forever--never to be included in future pay rates again. The same would happen with giving up more. We could possibly see a short term premium in pay rates, but only for 1 contract cycle (or less, as we're already behind American rates). I will not support trading PS in any form. It doesn't make long term sense as the next contract cycle will completely dismiss those give backs.

 

amen brother....

 

I've seen this argument several places but just now am getting it. Very strong argument against converting any PS, except for something very large, like getting your pensions back.

 

You are missing one crucial point. Had we not given up some PS last contract, then our pay raises would have been less. TAANSTAAFL--There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

All of our future contractual pay raises--for any contract--begin from a higher base wage due to the PS/pay rate trade. You will reap the benefit for years and years. You will also get higher DC contributions based on a higher base pay rate, rather than having to wait until Feb to get the PS payout.

That doesn't warrant a yes vote (other items were objectionable) but to say we only got the benefit for one contract I do not believe is correct.

 

TAANSTAFL. Is that dalpa's new code word for "cost neutral?" We have to pay for our own improvements?

Gmafb

 

No it doesn't have to be cost neutral (and shouldn't be!) but the idea that trading PS for pay is a one time good deal isn't necessarily true either. Any future pay increases on a percentage basis are by definition worth more if the baseline number starts out as a higher value.

(I don't advocate a one for one trade either)