Then why should we lose our minds over section 1?

You negotiate immediate penalties for non compliance.

Management paper bids the air line as if the required positions existed and pay the harmed pilots each and every month until they are in compliance.

We brought them into compliance, the least they can do is not get out of compliance again.

This language is worthless.

So cute when the DPA illustrates that it does not understand the RLA or how to enforce a contract. Kinda like a puppy that gets excited and pees on the floor.

But, it does get old after a while.

I'm still a yes vote after reading this and this is why, we have 68 wide bodies on order - a good portion of those are not replacements (some of them are).
Those airplanes are going to have to fly somwhere. For those that say those orders can be cancelled, yes they can but they can be cancelled for a multitude of other uncontrollable reasons as well. Some or all of these joint ventures keep our domestic planes full and growing as well: Had profit sharing been changed I would not feel like I do now but it's still a yes for me

Tell us what will happen after management is out of compliance after 2 years based on the new far lower minimums.

Tell us what will happen if we turn this down and they go out of compliance and move more flying to WestPac?

Tell me your experience settling grievances.

I spent countless hours working on grievances with Ken Watts in the ALPA office in Minneapolis. All on my own time with no flight pay loss. Settlements involving hundreds of pilots and millions of dollars. Captain Watts is far more intelligent and experienced than I am. That being said, I have forgotten more about enforcing the contract and selling grievances than you will ever know.

Did you have to handle that one grievance once? I imagine you have little to no experience.

I don't like the reduction in the AF ESK percentage, but I do like the shortening of the window. The previous 3 years of bottomless potential abuse by the company, followed by another year to "cure" was excessive. The percentage under the TA will be worse, but the compliance aspect will be way better. Is that a fair trade off? I don't know, I'll have to talk to a lot more people and see what they say at road shows.

The 650,000 block hour floor for global balancing, which is only triggered when they are below 48.5%, seems like a nice backstop, but what will the exact effect be when and if its triggered compared to today?

Is SEA a hub WRT the Alaska situation or is it not a hub for the purposes of our section 1? Because that is the only definition that matters.

I have another 20 years and scope matters to me. That said, a bad precedent was set when we settled for $30M for the previous JV grievance. Whatever the amount that DAL cheated, we have now set a precedent that said amount of JV flying is now worth $30M. This change to the JV % sucks, but again, using the precedent set last year what is the dollar value on this give? Is it worth $30M? Is it worthless as you say since it's unenforceable? If it is unenforceable anyway, then is it really a give? Playing devil's advocate, if this is really unenforceable then doesn't it makes sense for us to trade it for something of value since in reality the company can just take it with nothing in return?

Then Ken Watts could help you to understand that if the company violates our scope, under this TA, or under C2012, (or under the student counsel the DPA would set up to represent us) our bargaining agent would file a grievance which, as a minor dispute, would receive expedited handling while both sides are required to operate under the status quo. The bargaining agent could seek a variety of remedies from injunctive relief to compensatory and punitive damages.

Thank you for serving your pilots for free. I can only imagine the difficulty of sitting across the table from NWA management, regardless of the forum.

Excellent policy questions for the DPA. I eagerly await the answer from their alternative universe where there is no Railway Labor Act.

You mean like the intentionally delayed profit sharing grievances Malone just dropped?

Or the previous scope grievance Donatelli settled for peanuts? The one that now makes any future grievance on this same issue impossible to win?

Jerry,

Look at the big picture. They negotiated a deal. It includes a pay increase of 18% now with retro, going to 30.2% more with profit sharing untouched. A deal bringing our net contract annual value from $3B to $4B by 2019. $1B more by 2019.

That is more valuable than a grievance that was more than likely several years away from resolution and was probably going to fail.

$30,000,000.00 has been called many things ... "peanuts" ... "nothing" ... etc.

The settlement was significant for the fact that the company did not displace, or furlough pilots, as a result. The company's widebody utilization increased. The company's block hours, increased.

It was the largest scope settlement in history. It in no way limits future recovery and should the company again violate 1 P. 4. I believe a reasonable argument could be made for punitive damages.

Now, if you wanted to argue about the distribution methodology, fine. IMHO the distribution was inverted, with the most junior pilots being "harmed" more than the most senior pilots who were not affected at all. I will even go along with an argument on damages.

But you are demonstrably wrong when you write that our contract cannot be enforced, even in the face of thirty million dollars. It is intolerable that you and the uninformed DPA leadership tries to undermine our pilot group by publishing (in Bloomberg none the less) that the Delta pilot contract is not enforceable (and cannot be enforced). The fact the DPA does not understand the most basic tasks involved in pilot representation should be reason enough for any pilot to be embarrassed of association with the DPA.

Why not just start a "I hate all things Delta" club? You can collect donations from guys making more than twice what they did before to drink and wax nostalgic about Northwest Airlines, Doug Steenland and AMFA, while they sit in a dimly lit room, smoke, complain about Delta, play BINGO and blame everything on ALPA.

Pay increase isn't even industry standard for all AC types. Full retro is great, no argument there. The pay raises are now industry standard with UA's snap to clause. Will we have a snap to? Doubtful, given the change to 3.B.4
PS untouched is status quo. The grievance was from a past scenario, so throwing it out sets a bad precedence.

..........while I find your posts very accurate and informative alpa has set the bar to a very low standard and have demonstrated time after time that they can not be trusted to act in our best interest.

The compensation information and changes to 3B4 is covered in Negotiators Notepad 16-16.

Section 3 B. 4. and 5. "me too" Clauses Sections 3 B. 4 and 5 were created to facilitate Delta pilots getting a pay review when pay raises or bonuses are granted to other Delta employees. This TA incorporates modifications to 3 B. 4 that were negotiated as part of last year's Tentative Agreement. Section 3 B. 5 of our current contract expired on December 31, 2015 and has not been reinstated in this TA. 3 B. 4 triggers when Delta provides a pay raise to a significant number of our fellow employees. At that time, not only the size of that raise is looked at, our benchmark pay rate (B-757) is also compared to our peers at American and United. We then receive a pay increase of the lesser of the Delta raise, or the average of AA's and UAL's 757 rates versus our own.
Lately, airlines and pilot groups have both considered comprehensive pay, most commonly hourly-pay-plus-profit-sharing value, in negotiations and other comparisons. This TA establishes an "effective hourly rate" model for comparing the three carriers, replacing the existing straight hourly rate comparison. For the purposes of 3 B. 4, each carrier's hourly pay (DAL, AA and UAL) will be adjusted by its relative profit share performance and then compared.
The profit sharing percentage applied to American and United will be limited to no greater than the Delta profit sharing performance for the same period. For example,
if Delta's profit sharing for a given comparison period paid 10%, American's 8% and United's 12%, the hourly rates used for 3 B..4 comparison would be Delta's B-757 increased by 10%, versus American's B-757 plus 8% averaged with United's B-757 plus 10%.

Hope this helps.

Delta MEC Communications Committee Volunteers

DalMECvolunteer,

Will people be paid flight pay loss to monitor/post on social media sights?

Your repeat of the notepad doesn't help. But it is interesting our profit sharing counts against us in rate comparison, but if United's profit sharing exceeds ours, we pretend it doesn't?

It doesn't help as I've already read that and the leaked TA for days. Compensation doesn't even match UA for several AC. Are you getting FPL to be here?

Yes. As per previous communications from the MEC.

The profit sharing of other air lines is included in the new 3B4 pay calculation.

Delta MEC Communications Committee Volunteers

Yes on the FPL.

Volunteers are in Atlanta, answering your questions and sourcing new questions with subject matter experts.

Let us know if we can answer more questions.

Delta MEC Communications Committee Volunteers

DMECCV,

Will we see the May 2016 contract comparison document updated with TA information soon? I find that format pretty solid. Naturally, I'd like it to include SWA's TA until/unless they vote it down.

Does the SME think our pay matches UA's on DOS?

TED74,

All of that information is forthcoming, and will be presented in that comparative format.

Hope this helps,

Delta MEC Communications Committee Volunteers

A half truth is as good as a lie. Are you hear to spin/lie about every concession in this deal?

I simply stated if United's PS exceed our's, we'll pretend it doesn't.

You replied the above, "profit sharing is included." I never suggested otherwise. The observation was if United's profit sharing exceeds ours, we'll just pretend it doesn't when evaluating 3B4.

It was a 1/2 truth intended to mislead.

Buyer beware, Flight Pay Loss sales job is on!

If FPL is such a great gravy train, why don't some of you keyboard badasses step up and get you some o' dat? I am sure they would love to have more 'volunteers'.

The point is our dues is being used to sale this thing. I was just hoping for a open and honest presentations (unlike last time) and allow the TA to sell itself. It shouldn't be sold to us.

Will half truths are given to hide a concession, that is a problem.

More of that LCA leadership on display...I guess these paid monitors are part of the promise to not sell the TA!

So you two guys are just too stand up and ethical to take any of that money to provide information to the group.. Got it. Thank you for that honesty.

New guy here who doesn't really understand JV scope...

How many Delta pilot jobs would we lose going from 50% to 47.5%?

That is a Yuuuuuge question. Not being a wise ass or anything, but tbh there are too many variables to get a good answer. One could make assumptions based on a static environment, or could go hard core pessimist (the one you are likely to get on here and ****shat and FB) Or you could go full on optimistic (the one you will probably get from dALPA.

The change is actually a 48.5% to a 47.5% floor with a 1% buffer, a shorter measurement period and no cure period.

50% was never a floor for the company but the target flying share prior to Alitalia joining the JV.

The proposed TA also gives us a 650,000 block hour floor that would require flying to be shifted to other trans Oceanic theaters in order to keep jobs the same.

Please read the NNP 17-17 on scope and decide for yourself. More information will be released on scope in the coming weeks as well, if the AIP is sent on for MEMRAT.

DELTA MEC Communications Committee Volunteers

No, it makes sense to have strong leadership that doesn't roll over for a paltry sum. We do not have to agree that precedent. We can fight and make a strong case that the lack of flights, jobs, upgrades, etc are worth a ton more.

So, at least we know what your (nothing personal, you are in a big group I think) price is for scope sell off. I hope it doesn't us in the ass.

Paltry? Damn son you must be seriously rich. Good on ya.

Optimistic thinking is healthy, but the new Delta Management team will drive our little wide body fleet thru the, they would never do that, holes in our contract language and DALPA will talk tough but cave on any grievance if they even file one! Back to ebay looking for colorful unicorns.

Which means, we are willing to let them keep the block hours at a level from years ago while the company has added thousands of pilots and a ton of NB flying. So, don't look at it as losing any WB flying. Think of it as losing a percentage of WB jobs at this airline. If our partners grow even more, our percentage could just keep dropping and dropping, but we will stay at 650,000 block hours, so no big deal right?

Well, that is no big deal unless you care about the contract the company made with us when they implemented the JV. And it is no big deal unless you actually think that Delta should not outsource the wide body flying to our JV partners while we keep the same block hours that we have been flying. That is the exact reason why the agreement is done in percentages. We do not want them to grow their flying while we stay the same. We do not want to make our JV partners the source of Atlantic flying while we shift to Pacific with no growth.

SCOPE IS VERY IMPORTANT. This is a HUGE loss for us! It is being sold to us as a win. IT IS NOT!

Don't you get bored posting on here hundreds of times per day adding nothing to the conversation?

For those that use critical thinking, the paltry sum averaged out to a fraction of a month's paycheck for pilots. Yes, that is paltry when you factor in how many hours we didn't fly on our highest paying equipment, how many upgrades didn't happen, the jobs that were not needed, etc...

But you knew that.

Scope is the most important section. By far.

WRT the TA scope, what are we giving up other than the 1%/will be in compliance part? That is definitely a concession and I don't like it, but I really like the 2 year no cure period part. That is a definite win. The block hour floor is also a win at least in the technical sense, as IMO we need strong ESK and BH protections going forward because relying on only one can be pretty dangerous.

And is SEA a hub WRT the potential return of Alaska code share abuse or not?

And as I have said numerous times, tying highest pay to biggest equipment is idiotic. But you know that doncha. You know since you are the critical thinker and all........