notEnuf

Profit sharing has an automatic snap back. Win/win. The company gets a cost savings when seriously needed. We get a part of the profit as some as they make it.

The leadership has positioned the company so they make money even in a downturn. Their words: at $75 oil we will do fine. The industry is now focused on profits and shareholder returns not market share.

qball

Give me the 14% raise. Then if they want to give another 5% raise for 5% PS I might listen.

Denny Crane

Timbo,

I luv ya man but I have to play "Devils Advocate" and am going to use your post.

Many on here and in ChitChat land say "absolutely NO concessions" or "the concession stand is closed!" The very nature of your post has PS going away. Is that not a concession!?! If not and its a "trade," well then many transactions could be classified as "trades."

Me, I too would take that "trade!"

Denny

TenYearsGone

14% pay-raise is nothing. Once taxes and deductions are taken, you are left with nothing. Do the math.

You boys need to realize that we have sacrificed a ton for these charlatans. We gave too much voluntarily in the past because we had chicken littles on the property. Hopefully they have retired or changed their stripes.

YOU NEED TO SET YOUR STANDARDS HIGHER! MUCH HIGHER! Do not settle for anything less than what has been put out. I for one think it was too low but, hey if the majority accepts, I will accept.

TEN

Eck4Life

Agree 100% Ten.

Our counter proposal is my baseline. I believe it is an extremely fair offer. Had this been baseball style arbitration I think it would be a homerun. If they start chipping away at it, no bueno.

Gunfighter

Falcon, the company is playing chess and they are 5 moves ahead. Put down the checkers and come over to the real game. Just curious, do you make major purchases based on monthly payments or overall cost? You seem to have a short term financial focus, look a little farther out.

99% of us know our monthly paycheck for Jan 16 would have been higher under NA15. 65% saw the longer term detrimental impact in top end scope, bottom end scope, PS, sick leave, and productivity concessions to make that happen. Monetizing QOL and scope items is the equivalent of using a home equity loan to finance consumer spending, eventually the bill comes due and you are left with nothing of value because the equity is gone.

Gunfighter

Not only no, but he|| no! We must not trade PS for pay rates. It is giving up an item of long term value for a one time gain. The boost you get will be short lived. Sure it sounds good now, but once it's gone, it's gone. If we give up our profit sharing for payrates, those higher rates get compared against other carries for the NEXT contract.

Falcon7

That's precisely why monetizing PS makes sense. PS was a bone given to us when we took pay cuts to avoid BK. Well that didn't work. Now that we are in a position to increase our pay, I'd give them back some PS for some pay rate improvements, particularly if its 3%-4% in pay for each % of PS.

Top end scope, let's look at that. By voting no we conceded that Delta US-UK EASKs would be counted against us in the AF/KLM/AZ JV. The last I checked, AF/KLM/AZ don't fly between the US-UK. Why is it a good thing to count all of those DAL EASKs in the US-UK market? And before you go to EASKs are better than BH, that is only true in a growing market. When downsizing happens, we get crushed by it. Gauge protection, we have that in section 1R, which pertains to all international twin aisle flying, not just in Section 1P.

I also thought preventing the company from plastering the Delta livery and brand on foreign carriers without any permission at all was an improvement, as was getting control language in the contract to prevent an affiliate shell game with international partners.

Bottom end scope. By voting no we conceded enough of a block hour ratio that the company could drive the entire MD88 fleet through. That's right, by conceding the BH ratio by voting no, we are allowing the company the flexibility to park a fleet of narrow body airplanes as large as the MD88 fleet and still be in compliance. Raising the BH ratio to 1.81 protected far more jobs than any perceived losses for a handful of 76-seat jets, or the BH boogeyman argument about the loss of transatlantic widebody flying. One last thing, the no vote also conceded furlough protection for over a thousand Delta pilots, protection that saved us from furlough during the economic melt down in 2008.

PS- Sucker insurance. You already admitted that we are losing money by not taking 3-5 percent in more pay for each percent of PS that was on the table.

Sick Leave: We didn't lose a single hour of that benefit in the TA, just a handful of days that most of us don't use anyways would be subject to verification. But by voting no we conceded income offset to disability payments, we conceded 60 days of full pay for FAA leave and we allowed them to continue to count sick leave hours against our threshold when we are out for over two weeks.

Productivity concessions: Yep, LCA pulls. I'd rather have a better bid packages for all pilots with RCC oversight, I'd rather have greater flexibility to manage my schedule by creating a realistic reserve required formula, I'd rather have greater transparency in vacation bidding, I'd rather have the ability to better manage my vacation days. I'd rather have better reroute language that doesn't give the company a pass for mechanicals.

BobZ

Wow. Just... wow.

Trip7

IMO, the chance of the company accepting our counter proposal anytime soon(within 3 years) is close to nil. I think we'll end up with a United rates +5-7% and very minor concessions to no concessions type deal.

Many have stated by dropping all the concessions NA15 would have passed by 70%+ like United's LOA did.