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%? :eek::eek:

Profit Sharing
 

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)

There are so many herk guys my heads going to explode keeping them straight.

The whole point is we should be able to better AA pay rates without touching profit sharing. Say we do exactly that and then we monetize 5% profit sharing. We now have a 5% premium on straight pay rates plus the left over PS. Fast forward to next contract cycle, AA betters our pay rates by a percentage point or two then we re-enter negotiations. We should be able to maintain the 5+ percent advantage we had because of the PS swap from the contract before or we have just lost the advantage of keeping it separate.

I see your point but I think keeping them separate will lead to more money in our pockets in the long run. The caveat to this is we HAVE to be able to negotiate rates similar to AA without touching PS.

I've been beating this drum for a while now.

Denny

You're not going to convince some people that you don't have to give something up for a pay raise. They attach that any gain must be accompanied by a loss. It's been indoctrinated. It's now a given, a way of life.

Even if your boss has increased his compensation by 700% and you're down by 20% plus TVM of that loss. You're pension is backed by the PBGC. Social Security is going broke. Medical premiums will sap your retirement savings.

We can't count on some of these pilots to walk.

I don't think that any gain "must" be accompanied by a loss. But there are two sides to any negotiations. I'm also happy with DALPA for a lot of stuff on the "perimeter" of the contract that they've fixed, even though the perpetually ****ed off class doesn't acknowledge it... or more likely just hasn't a clue.

For example this month I'm on reserve and have flown two separate 3-day trips that had just one leg of less than an hour, and that was my entire day. Both trips were worth 15.45 and both would have been worth 12 hrs and change for decades! Thanks to our negotiators securing the ADG and also applying for it to reserves, my (busy) month paid 88 hrs instead of the reserve guarantee of 80 that I would have gotten just a few years ago.

Concessions aren't always a one way street either Don't you think that the company has their guys saying "***? Two years ago we would have paid this guy 80 hrs and now we're paying him 88 for the same flying. What knucklehead negotiated that for the company?"

Didn't we just get a UAL/AMR average pay increase in April? With 3B4, we would have had the same rates anyways, without the 2012 Profit Sharing give back.

Not only did Failed TA2015 give away more profit sharing, it watered down the PTIX to reduce further PS on top of the percentage give back... and then, wait for it..... it would have added PS to 3B4 comps making 3B4 virtually worthless.

Don't give up profit sharing, don't water down profit sharing, don't water down 3B4.

Do you think we will ever have another chance to get profit sharing? This is a percentage of profit that can increase exponentially, this is not the type of benefit labor is ever awarded. The only reason we have it now is because they were willing to give it when it wasn't worth anything.

Delta Air Lines: Prudent Use Of The Cash Flow Will Lead To Upside - Delta Air Lines, Inc. (NYSE:DAL) | Seeking Alpha

This profit sharing puts you at the front of the line, in front of management and ownership.

You forget a very key point. Both the AMR and UAL rates were a product of our contract in 2012. Without that contract it's doubtful those rates would have existed in 2015.

Irrelevant

Keep beating it, so to speak, Denny. I will dance to it.

^^^^^^This man gets it.

So what is the point here? If we didn't take a marginally good contract 3 years ago, we wouldn't be asking for restoration now?

I'm not sure I follow your line of thought.

Sorry scambo, we're gonna ruin the neighborhood; low-class knuckle-draggers. Hide your women and your Scotch...

You know what we should do is open for an INCREASE in profit sharing! Heck, let's go back to what we had before 20012, when we traded some of it for our 3% raises! In C2012 the company opened for 0% raises, and we had to give up profit sharing to get the 3%.:rolleyes:

Aren't we proud...

And your gay porn... ;)

I kid, I kiiiiiiiiid

If we would have been 3% behind the industry average on April 1, 2015 your pay rate would be the same as it is now. 3B4 raise would have been 3% instead of .55%.

That's the F-15 guys right? 👬

Nowadays, it could be anyone.

Kadena can be a lonely place though. Didn't DM have something like that too? Old news.

I take the McPeak manly man approach to life though. I still wear v neck T-shirts.:D

Too many A's! TAN.....:mad:

Just sayin'

This is exactly correct!

I don't really care what SD says...

If they had the tool now, they would most certainly use it... and that tool would be a hammer!

Only SL change I will vote for is to change it back to pre-bankruptcy of 300hrs unverified (I would allow the few minor exceptions that they also had before, but rarely used).

We are making BILLIONS!

RESTORATION NOW!

Sam DeRosa
0961094 (Scott Martin write-in)
Jimmy Johnson
Chris Kern

Exactly correct... But we have paid dearly for our lunch for the past 11 years!

AND we are making BILLIONS!

No more paying!

NO CONCESSIONS

RESTORATION NOW!

Sam DeRosa
0961094 (Scott Martin write-in)
Jimmy Johnson
Chris Kern

Here's the thing.... We are basically asking for a raise.

What person would work for a company that says:

"Sure we're making more money than at any time in the history of our busines, and of course we'd love to give you a raise...

BUT, we are going to have to take other stuff away from your current contract to pay for it."

I don't suspect said company would have much luck attracting and keeping talent.

Folks, we are making RIDICULOUS amounts of money!

NOW is the time for RESTORATION!

Sam DeRosa
0961094 (Scott Martin write-in)
Jimmy Johnson
Chris Kern

I fully understand why the company wanted the changes.

Some of the yes voters like to say what was the big deal, access to records is already in the contract. That is a partially true statement. Yes it is there, but no they can't use it as a way to combat sick leave abuse. I'm simply pointing out the difference. Though it is present in the current contract, it's inclusion in the TA represented a large change. Don't blow it off and tell me it's no big deal cause it's already there.

That said I do think there is a sick leave abuse problem, one that has to be addressed. I didn't like the solution that was in the TA, but I fully expect it to be addressed one way or another in any future TA.

Good grief!

We are maxing out on EVERY performance metric...

We are making more money than has EVER been made in ALL the history of airlines...

And you want to "solve" the companies perceived "sick leave abuse" problem?... Because they say so?

There is absolutely NOT a sick leave "abuse" problem... there is a "company perceived" sick leave use problem.

The amount of pilots "abusing" sick leave is statistically insignificant... and the company already has plenty of tools to address those individuals.

NO CONCESSIONS!

RESTORATION NOW!

Sam DeRosa
0961094 (Scott Martin write-in)
Jimmy Johnson
Chris Kern

What would happen if every Delta pilot applied to [fed ex, SWA, American]?

Would it be a permissible activity to coodinate?

I don't care how insignificant you consider it to be. I have seen guys get green slips I would have received had they not sicked out of a trip. Then I went back and looked at previous months only to see the same thing......sick out of a four day, tues-fri trip only to magically get well in time for a Sat-Sun green slip. I don't care if it happens very few times, once time is too many. That's not a company problem, that's our problem.

At a minimum a trip not flown due to sick leave should count just as if you had flown in terms of white or greenslip pick up.

simple fix.....call in sick...ineligible for any gs in the sick call trip footprint.

Sick leave management is the company's problem.
If they want to offer a few tweaks....what are they willing to give up for that?

Is that abuse or circumventing the intent of the contractual language? If it is circumventing intent, then it's permissible, apparently. :rolleyes:

How about back of the line for a GS? This was actually something that the TA had right. This will not affect the number of Greenslips at all but may occasionally prevent the contract Ninjas from jumping to the head of the GS line.

Scoop

that would penalize a sick call event pilot for the entire month.