sailingfun

We currently do 55% of the JV flying. I assume you meant to say EASK.

Scoop

It might be a lob if you choose to ignore the other given that No voters are assuring us is not at risk - full retro pay.

For if full retro is a given and industry average rates are also a given what difference does all the above that you posted make?

I am being told to vote No because the pay rates are a given and all we have to do to get full retro is demand it.

Well OK if that were indeed true - we are going to get full retro to industry average rates who cares if the company drags this out?
All 3.B.4 does is get us to industry average rates that the No voters are assuring us is an absolute certainty.

So either full retro and industry average rates are not a given or they are a given.

If they are not a given then 3.B.4 could help but since we are guaranteed full retro to industry average rates then we don't need 3.B.4.

You cant have it both ways.

The very argument that full retro pay to industry average rates is a given makes 3.B.4 unnecessary. Or is full retro with ensuing industry average rates all the way back to our amendable date not guaranteed with all the uncertainty that a No vote brings?

Scoop

notEnuf

Industry average rates are a given because the market is set and because Delta pilots won't allow less.

Separately, if this is voted down, 3B4 continues to move us to those industry average rates.

Under the new TA the commingling of profit sharing and pay rates destroys the effectiveness of the clauses. This concession removes leverage and real rate increases during prolonged negotiations. The future negotiators will have to make quick deals similar to TA1 to show pay rate gains for the TVM crowd that will have no patience for a normal section 6 duration. That quick deal will probably take the form of converted PS into pay rates, forfeiting our tie to profit generated outside Delta operations.

Meanwhile our global international flying is capped at 650,000 block hours and the JV partnerships (along with new ones still to be announced) do the majority of the Delta branded revenue/profit generating international flying.

Lastly, consider the 1E9 brand release from the MEC once the previous is accomplished. What would motivate the MEC to take this action? Pay rates, an increase in the International Block hour minimum, more widebody orders?

LeineLodge

So you're advocating we turn down industry LEADING rates (while retaining industry leading PS) to retain a clause that will provide leverage for industry AVERAGE rates in the event we end up in prolonged negotiations? It can be triggered once every 18 months IF the company decides to, and remember how they timed the non-con raises to avoid the most recent trigger just prior to section 6.

This is the very definition of trading a fat bird in the hand for a skinnier one in the bush.

This is pure spin to sell your NO. Is everyone paying attention how desperate the NO crowd is getting?

There is currently no GBH floor so it would logically follow that the 650,000 FLOOR is an improvement over what we currently do not have. Your attempt to somehow call it a cap is simply not true.

While it is true that the company could maintain compliance with 650k GBH + 46.5% of EASKs in the TATL JV, it js NOT a cap.

Next...

Again, 1E9 is a protection we do not currently have. You are attempting to spin it again as a concession. Let's try it this way: what can we do under the existing PWA to prevent GOL from painting widgets on their tails (think of Copa and Continental)? Answer: nothing

How about in the TA? 1E9, a new scope enhancement, prohibits that. As to your point that the MEC will sell it back immediately for gains, the same paranoia can be applied to any item or value in the existing or tentative agreements, which I guess maybe is your point.

notEnuf

1) I am not advocating a NO, I am currently undecided. I am examining the agreement we are about to enter into and how further negotiations will play out with the stated concessions given.

2) The money is fine. I don't disparage the MEC for going after this deal, it was obviously well supported. 15-4 is a decisive vote. We are not likely to move that bar higher with the industry coalescing around this rate level. I do want the concessions and the pitfalls of the deal exposed fully to be better prepared for the future. My future may be different than yours. The goal of management to reduce profit sharing in this cycle was well defended. The same needs to continue or the only industry leading part of our compensation and contract will be sacrificed for pay rates.

3) 3B4 and profit sharing in their current form are the tools to prevent and benefit in spite of the RLAs "amendability" issue and prolonged negotiations. While not perfect, it is effective. Several negotiations at several properties have tried to get pay rate increases beyond the amendable date by considering a permanent COLA based on inflation or by a perpetual 3% increase. None have made their way into an agreement, except ours. We have it. We are about to give it upon. These are facts.

Feel free to attack my argument.

650,000 global aircraft block hours is labeled a floor by posters, my choice to label it a cap is from the perspective of a manager planning the next virtual mergers. This provides the freedom to construct those JVs in any form beneficial to management including how to assign growth in that part of the network. Once written the JVs become the profit generating low cost operation and the argument for why we can't afford to have Delta pilots or Delta planes operate those routes. Yes, my label is ceiling.

Denny Crane

Your labeling the 650,000 GBH as a ceiling is just wrong. It is not the most (ceiling) that can be flown when it is activated. It is the least (floor). To look at it any other way is disingenuous.

Contract language: schedule no fewer than 650,000 aircraft block hours of international operations on 1 widebody aircraft (excluding B-767-300 (non-ER) aircraft) and on B-757 aircraft on 2 ocean crossings across the Atlantic Ocean

Denny

notEnuf

And your goal as a negotiator writing a JV with say CEA would be how much Delta flying? Knowing you have met your contractual floor at 650,000 GBHs and the hours are not a consideration. The company will outsource to the extent possible, they have said this is the most efficient way to grow the business. Now consider those airplanes wearing widgets and Delta paint, eventually. Ask yourself, why would management want a global block hour floor? To know they have freedom to assign JV flying (read growth) to whom and where they choose.

Denny, you are obviously an honest guy and take people at their word. I admire the direct interpretations you make but I am not confident a business person trying to increase profitability has the same perspective. Yes, this is a minimum below our current levels. But, and this is a big but. This is also the lack of a ratio.

APCLurker

That "embarrassingly good" 16% DC contribution was instituted to supposedly make up for the loss of $120,000-$150,000 per year pensions. Per year..... As somebody else before me said, if you are somewhere over 40, it's not gonna bring you back up to that level.

It has been at the 15% level for 3 years now. Only 1% additional is woefully inadequate. Not to mention, the 15% level was a reduction in DC contribution for some from what they were getting.


What other professions get is totally and absolutely irrelevant.

The amazing act of our DC contribution has the company laughing all the way to the bank when they think about the coin they are saving off our backs. And they actually got people like you to be amazed about it.

If you are that embarrased by it, please feel free to distribute it to others.

Scoop

We had to chance ot fight this over 10 years ago via the LOA 46 and 51 votes. The DAL Pilot group folded like a cheap suit. The DB is gone, has been gone and that battle is over - we lost.

Putting that aside the current TA before seems us seems worthy of a Yes vote in my opinion. There are some things about that I do not like about it but I refuse to sound the alarm like its the end of the Piloting profession.

The desperation of the No crowd this time around is eerily familiar and reminds me exactly how the Yes crowd was behaving last time around. They are choosing to ignore the obvious groundswell of support for this TA and insist it is an orchestrated campaign by DALPA and management to sway us foolish line pilots who can't think for ourselves.



Scoop

Denny Crane

I don't disagree with your interpretation in your first paragraph. I just disagreed with your previous characterization of the 650,000 GBH as a ceiling and not a floor.

Yes the company seems to have expressed the opinion that outsourcing thru JV's is a good thing. Question: When the company establishes a JV don't they have to negotiate with us(dalpa) to implement it? I assume so since we have at least 4 of them in our Scope section. I don't think they can just unilaterally enter in to an agreement without negotiating with us. If so, we only have ourselves to blame if we give up a bunch of flying.

Thanks for the compliment.........I think!

Denny