Network growth
06-03-2016, 12:48 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,459
Falcon, do you wear your black polo shirt when you write these posts?
Every response you gave is looking only one move ahead on the board. You have to look a little further out. If we trade PS to get hourly rates ahead of other carriers, it will last exactly one contract. It will come back to hurt us when comparing payrates for the NEXT contract. Chess not checkers
The scope clause gave away international WB flying. EASK or BH aside, it instantly put the company into compliance with an out of balance agreement. EASK vs BH is the metric used in the JV language by the company. It is THE proper metric to gauge the split in flying. If BH were so much better don't you think RA and EB would have written the JV agreements in BH terms?
Since voting NO, we have brought substantial amounts of RJ flying to mainline, this shift into mainline brought on by economic forces can and should be codified in our new contract.
The company shift in sick leave was but one in a series of moves to bring in Sedgewick or an equivalent firm to "manage" the process. Chess not checkers, come on man.
I'd like everything you outlined with regard to better rotations, transparency in vacation, reroute pay, etc., It's just not worth taking the cut in relative seniority and pay caused by the LCA language.
Every response you gave is looking only one move ahead on the board. You have to look a little further out. If we trade PS to get hourly rates ahead of other carriers, it will last exactly one contract. It will come back to hurt us when comparing payrates for the NEXT contract. Chess not checkers
The scope clause gave away international WB flying. EASK or BH aside, it instantly put the company into compliance with an out of balance agreement. EASK vs BH is the metric used in the JV language by the company. It is THE proper metric to gauge the split in flying. If BH were so much better don't you think RA and EB would have written the JV agreements in BH terms?
Since voting NO, we have brought substantial amounts of RJ flying to mainline, this shift into mainline brought on by economic forces can and should be codified in our new contract.
The company shift in sick leave was but one in a series of moves to bring in Sedgewick or an equivalent firm to "manage" the process. Chess not checkers, come on man.
I'd like everything you outlined with regard to better rotations, transparency in vacation, reroute pay, etc., It's just not worth taking the cut in relative seniority and pay caused by the LCA language.
06-03-2016, 12:57 PM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,459
Originally Posted by 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.
I would also give up all of my S2 passes to expand JS booking to include any open seat at time of booking instead of just an open jumpseat.
I would even give up the two extra days in February, so that July 1st can be reunited with her family.
Has anyone calculated the 3B4 impact to our pay for Jan 17? We may be closer to a pay raise from C2012 that we are a new contract.
06-03-2016, 06:18 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,033
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
The point is there was not(nearly)Enuf. All the gains you tout are still attainable, are they not? Your peers, 2 to 1, have told you in this unprecedented time in Delta's history we not only expect restoration of 12 year old pay rates but a return on our investment. The tremendous investment was extracted by our current CEO multiple times on a promise of future rewards. The pilots saved this company from oblivion and a hostile takeover attempt. How has he faired since? Further investment was made when we executed a nearly flawless merger now seen as the industries best ever and put Delta on top of the industry in operational performance.
We are justified in our choice to continue negotiations. You failed to listen to the voice of the pilots and thought a sales job and fear campaign would get the vote you desperately needed. Shame on you.
You will probably never accept your failure, but it might give you peace to admit the failure and move on. Good luck, the lack of acceptance a year later only makes me have pity for you. It's over, find a way to move on for your own sanity.
Last edited by notEnuf; 06-03-2016 at 07:03 PM.
06-03-2016, 07:32 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: 7ERB
Posts: 2,039
Originally Posted by 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.
Many have stated by dropping all the concessions NA15 would have passed by 70%+ like United's LOA did.
TEN
06-04-2016, 02:02 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,324
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
06-04-2016, 05:23 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: Power top
Posts: 2,959
It shouldn't be forgotten that immediately after C2012, Delta went on a buying spree. VA, GOL, a refinery. Huge investment outside the corporation. Recently, China and now another airline.
Plenty of money to invest outside, but telling us they just need more concessions. There business plan works WITHOUT one single concession from us. In fact, the money is there to pay us industry leading wages (DAL earns considerably more than UAL), even with billions in fuel hedge losses, billions in stock buy backs, increases in dividends, foreign investment.
Profit sharing is now a retirement tool. It's a bonus for hard work and past sacrifice. With the current limits of 401 investment, why give up any profit sharing. We've been told how valuable we are, why do they want the only good deal left back? Corporate greed, stand up now.
Plenty of money to invest outside, but telling us they just need more concessions. There business plan works WITHOUT one single concession from us. In fact, the money is there to pay us industry leading wages (DAL earns considerably more than UAL), even with billions in fuel hedge losses, billions in stock buy backs, increases in dividends, foreign investment.
Profit sharing is now a retirement tool. It's a bonus for hard work and past sacrifice. With the current limits of 401 investment, why give up any profit sharing. We've been told how valuable we are, why do they want the only good deal left back? Corporate greed, stand up now.
06-04-2016, 06:05 AM
#28
Bye Bye Maddog!
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Movin' On UP........
Posts: 560
Originally Posted by TenYearsGone
We gave too much voluntarily in the past because we had chicken littles on the property. Hopefully they have retired or changed their stripes.
TEN
TEN
Actually......John Malone was the MEC chairman at the time we "gave up" too much....
I think he is a straight shooter and was dealt a "marked" hand back then. I think it's going to be hard to fool him again!
06-04-2016, 09:16 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Position: Cockpit speaker volume knob set to eleven.
Posts: 1,410
Originally Posted by 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
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
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
