Complete TA Posted on DALPA
 

Complete TA available on DALPA site.

(The Contract 2015 Tentative Agreement language is now posted to the Delta MEC website, dal.alpa.org.
Click on the Negotiations Contract 2015 banner for complete contract information including Negotiators’ Notepads.)

Read it and weep. Ask yourself why the actual language and the NN seem to diverge.

You can't toss a grenade into a crowd without some proof. Pony up since you seem so convinced.

Just read it. Like I said. Don't be dumb.

Dumb is making a rather direct accusation without showing your proof. This is your burden to bear.

You said you read and digested the entire document. For those not quite as fast give us a hint where to find these discrepancies.

Evelyn Wood would be proud.

I was just posted.... You've read and understand 400+ pages already????

I think not, now go pull your head out of your ass and actually read it for your self.

The TA was leaked days ago, and it was the same document. Some of us have already read it. Maybe an apology is in order?

Ok, sorry.

I can't find it yet....a little help please.

The Contract 2015 Tentative Agreement language is now posted to the Delta MEC website, dal.alpa.org.
Click on the Negotiations Contract 2015 banner for complete contract information including Negotiators’ Notepads.)

this is my shocked face that it's the exact same document that came out last week.

.
I have reading comprehension difficulties. I have skimmed the entire full langauge TA onece and I am now rereading the critical sections for effect.
.

Please feel free to post a half-dozen (or so) examples supporting your very, very serious accusation, which is quoted above.

Or just S T F U . :rolleyes:
.
Seriously BtoA, I would love some concrete examples....I have seen this accusation on this forum earlier several times today and would love some specific sections so I can examine them in detail.
.

.

I don't see a divergence. Can you be more specific?

The NNs describe where we came from, and where our peers are. Neither of those elements would be in the actual contract language. Is that what you're implying?

any share a PM with the TA?
 

any who can share the TA through a PM?

Please and thank you.

I don't mean to be dense but I don't remember seeing an email saying the TA had been voted on by the MEC. By releasing the "TA", I'm assuming the MEC has voted in favor of the AIP and that it is our responsibility to read it and this is the document we will be voting on in the near future.

I'm serious, I'm not being cagey. I have had the last 7 days off and haven't heard that it was approved to be sent to the membership.

I will read the entire document before passing judgement. I just didn't want to get too wrapped up on anything that was subject to change.

E

Tentative agreement means language is formal. It hasn't been voted on yet by MEC.

I believe there was a motion was passed to allow the pilot group to see the TA prior to the MEC vote. This is the TA that we will vote on if the MEC passes (which I'm fairly confident they will).

Thanks. When do they vote on it?

I think they are shooting for Thursday.

Scoop

This^^^^

Any bets on the the timeline being shortened again? I think in the internet age that 60 days is way too long. 30 days is probably too short, although I'm sure there are plenty of yes AND no voters that are already ready to vote. 45 days seems like a reasonable timeline. Plenty of time to host some roadshows/base visits and get everyone informed.

My bet is also a 45 day Memory Rat window.

Scoop

Approved by the MEC by October 15th with 45 day window makes the voting window close November 30th. If memrated that is enough time for retro to be paid sometime in December.

Denny

It's critical the checks are cut this year. 45 days makes sense.

A December 1 Date of Signing makes a lot of sense for both retro and the start of sick leave look back. (Versus a November 30 DoS so sick leave look back would start as of November 1.)

Denny

and how did you arrive at this gem?

it is far more important we get this right.

Dec 9th is the magic DOS date for retro to be paid in December.

"Retro pay will be made in a single payment as soon as practicable following DOS but no later than December 31, 2016, provided DOS is on or before December 9, 2016."

It was posted last week. Keep up.

Read a few threads here. The biggest hit to us is SCOPE. Next is trip pulls. Probably VB after that. There are many concessions in here. You guys really should try harder.

.
OK, I am asking again nicely. I am not asking which sections you don't like. I get that loud and clear. I am asking for clarification on your original accusational post (quoted at the top of this post).

Please cite some "actual language" and the same subject in a NN which are divergent.

I am trying to compare the NNs to the full langauge TA and so far, the NNs seem aligned. Any differences would make me very skeptical, so I look forward to getting some precise examples of divergence from you.

Thanks in advance.
Your buddy...

KnotSoFast
.

You're exactly right KSF...I'm struggling with the same problem. I see many of the familiar faces disparaging the TA but I am still hoping they'll actually provide detailed examples on specific portions of the TA so we can understand where these concessions are. I want to be better educated on the decision too but its hard when the only argument presented is the generalized statement that the TA is concessionary.

I'll use Virtual Basing as an example. I read a post on here today with lots of railing about how Virtual Basing is terrible and is a huge concession that will help the company and hurt the pilots. Pilots can volunteer to go to those VB or not, as they choose. For a commuter in a city packed with other commuters like Dallas, having a PS ticket to and from work seems like a nice deal. For a commuter having to pay for a crash pad to sit reserve, a paid hotel room seems like a nice deal. But that's only my perspective, so I'm hoping to get some specifics on where the concessions are with doing virtual bases, as with everything else.

There are plenty of smart people on here who know a great deal about the implications of the language in the TA...I'm just hoping they'll chime in and help educate the rest of us so we can cut through the unsubstantiated posts that seems to clutter this forum.

Scope NN and the FAQ are misleading (to be nice about it, lying to not be so nice). There is one example.

Failing to disclose other concessions in the NN while they touted pay rates could be seen as another. I could go through each NN and compare it to the section of the contract, but hopefully a well-written con paper will do that. If not, I promise to come back and try to do my best.

Keep up the accusations that this is some sort of conspiracy. I am a regular line pilot that pays dues and occasionally emails my reps to express my POV. I have a lot of years left here, and I do not want to sell scope and QOL for industry-standard wages. You are free to disagree. All I ask is that you actually engage in debate or discourse instead of just saying that because I think this is a bad deal for us that I must have some ulterior motive.

Fair enough. There was a slide yesterday at the MEC meeting (posted on FB) that showed this:

"Slide showing total headcount change. 2017: -8, 2018: -8, 2019: +14. Increase attributable to the change in vacation credit (first two weeks to 3:45/day) in 2019."

The entire TA seems to be a net loss of -2 pilots. The cons, at least as far as staffing goes, seem to be overstated.

.
BtoA: Not trying to pick a fight here, but once again, your answer is non-responsive. I have re-read both of those sections, in both the TA and the NN, and I see nothing that I would term misleading.
.
If you don't want to post specific misleading language in both docs (or you can't), that's fine, I will stop pestering you and consider the issue as settled and that you can not actually find anything misleading and your original post in this thread was nothing but forum puffery.
.
Your buddy,

KSF
.

I'm a bit skeptical, but I'm also expecting to have about 45+ days to look into it further.

BToA,


Can you just come up with one example? Start the ball rolling and APC will take care of the rest.

Because they disregard the pilot jobs already lost to our JV scope violations. Not to mention, this does not take into account when the company drops to the BH minimum and gives our flying to all of the JV partners. What about those numbers?

Asked and answered. The half-truths about the job cost of our scope section is my #1.

What are those specific numbers?

How do you figure they will drop to the improved 650,000 block hours when the current limit is about 1/2 that?

Did you read the NN where they said growth was transferred to other theaters? The implication being there were no job losses.