Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)
-   -   New Contract Opener 22 Dec 15 (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/92342-new-contract-opener-22-dec-15-a.html)

Purple Drank 12-23-2015 04:21 AM

I would vote yes for our above counter-proposal, but nothing less.

Dec 31 is Backpack Liberation Day.

forgot to bid 12-23-2015 04:31 AM


Originally Posted by Cubdrick (Post 2032915)
Speaking of Sailing, did he got lost in the Triangle on his last voyage? Sort of quiet lately.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They all disappeared.

dragon 12-23-2015 04:44 AM


Originally Posted by newKnow (Post 2032903)
So, they are proposing:

- 22%/7%/& 7%
- For all of the draconian (and embarrassing) sick leave language from TA 1 to be removed.
- LCA/FO flying to remain what it is now.
- More vacation.
- No change in the profit sharing formula.
- and many other "pluses"

AND they are publicizing the openers?

Mr. New Chairman and New Negotiating Committee -- Nice job. :D

(I apologize for doubting your survey.)



I think Sailing and all the other naysayers, so far, have been proven wrong. :)

I agree, this is something I could vote for. The final product will need to be somewhat close.

There are already folks spewing hate about this reengagement here, on FB and on Chit Chat. I like how the NC is using some of RA's words against him and reminding him that our customers pay a premium to fly on a safe, on-time airplane flown by professional pilots.

The final deal will be different, but I like what I see so far,

MikeF16 12-23-2015 04:52 AM

The opener is nice, but this is a negotiation not an ultimatum (of course we are free to vote no for anything less). I'm hopeful for the best but I'd be amazed if we get a chance to vote on something that looks even vaguely familiar to the opener. I wouldn't be surprised if this dragged for quite some time. Until it hurts for the company, why should they budge? And if it already hurts, this opener doesn't do anything to ease those hurts, why would they agree? I hope I'm wrong.

I am glad ALPA showed the opener, it seemed stupid that ALPA and the company knew the last one but the pilots were left in the dark. This transparency is a step in the right direction.

EDIT:

Just saw this in the UAL contract extension, I really liked it. Perhaps if there is some give and take, this would be a great one to take, I hate the extension BS game. If I don't extend I don't extend, get over it. I don't want to file paperwork and I don't want to talk to the chief pilot. If I do extend, then pay up.

5. MOU 22 replacement: Pay protection and extension Add Pay improvements
a. Eliminates requirement to file fatigue FSAP report if electing not to extend
b. Automatic Look Back Add Pay (5-F-1-h and LOA 30) improves Add Pay
1. 2.5 hours Add Pay for 1-30 min extensions
2. 5 hours Add Pay for 31-120 min extensions

Timbo 12-23-2015 05:19 AM


Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 2032971)
Delta Bets On Its Punctuality. Will it Work? (DAL) (DAL)

I think management needs our cooperation. The new marketing campaign relies on our operational performance.

I'm guessing that Punctuality thingy might become a problem if RA drags his feet on this TA.

We have LOTS of leverage right now guys, don't pizz it away.

Oh, and I am underwhelmed at this counter proposal because it didn't address restoring our pensions, or increasing our vacation pay and training pay to at least match our flying day; 5:15. Seems this new MEC cannot say Restoration either. W. T. F?

Looks to me like Focus Plus = Restoration Minus.

MDPilot 12-23-2015 05:44 AM

All the talk about restoring retirement to 60% FAE, the PBGC would consider that a "follow-on plan" which it considers "abusive" to the insurance program. Result, the PBGC will undo the original pension termination and the company would be liable for all the original underfunding. What do you think the chances are that Delta would agree to any of that in a new contract? http://www.pbgc.gov/documents/lfad/ltv-restoration.pdf

Timbo 12-23-2015 05:53 AM


Originally Posted by MDPilot (Post 2033092)
All the talk about restoring retirement to 60% FAE, the PBGC would consider that a "follow-on plan" which it considers "abusive" to the insurance program. Result, the PBGC will undo the original pension termination and the company would be liable for all the original underfunding. What do you think the chances are that Delta would agree to any of that in a new contract? http://www.pbgc.gov/documents/lfad/ltv-restoration.pdf

I would say that if the PBGC tells them they HAVE TO take the pensions back, Delta doesn't have a choice, right?

There should be a law to prohibit buying back stock with underfunded pensions, where are our PAC dollars going on this?:rolleyes:

chuck416 12-23-2015 05:59 AM


Originally Posted by BobZ (Post 2033045)
FAE? Stands for.....Fools Actually Expect.....

Cynicism is strong here... anybody remember back in '96 or '97 when that small, but vocal, group of pilots suggested via union meeting proposal that the (North) pilot's defined benefit pension fund be converted to a defined contribution? And they were practically laughed off the property? Six or eight years later, that's exactly what happened, and we were raked over the coals for the delay that it cost the pilot group. Probably cost the most senior guys, well, who knows what. Maybe if there'd been more folks like BobZ around back then. Just sayin'...

On another note, Kuddos to the N/C and our Association's leadership for this opener. And I agree with one of the posters above, not a lot of room to negotiate downward, but plenty reasonable for the arbitration board to see things our way.

MDPilot 12-23-2015 06:21 AM


Originally Posted by Timbo (Post 2033099)
I would say that if the PBGC tells them they HAVE TO take the pensions back, Delta doesn't have a choice, right?

There should be a law to prohibit buying back stock with underfunded pensions, where are our PAC dollars going on this?:rolleyes:

But if Delta has a choice to sign a contract that they know will result in the PBGC making them take the pension back, or NOT agree to a contract with that in it that will keep the PBGC as it is, which one do you think they will go for?
I'll bet that would be a huge no-go item for the company

Hank Kingsley 12-23-2015 06:37 AM


Originally Posted by chuck416 (Post 2033102)
Cynicism is strong here... anybody remember back in '96 or '97 when that small, but vocal, group of pilots suggested via union meeting proposal that the (North) pilot's defined benefit pension fund be converted to a defined contribution? And they were practically laughed off the property? Six or eight years later, that's exactly what happened, and we were raked over the coals for the delay that it cost the pilot group. Probably cost the most senior guys, well, who knows what. Maybe if there'd been more folks like BobZ around back then. Just sayin'...

On another note, Kuddos to the N/C and our Association's leadership for this opener. And I agree with one of the posters above, not a lot of room to negotiate downward, but plenty reasonable for the arbitration board to see things our way.

Circa 92, after PanAm airman brought over B funds, that thought was alive at D South. The Ponzi scheme in place would be too difficult to change, so some thought.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:43 PM.


User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands