The same was said repeatedly about contract 2012. The unions numbers were spot on if not conservative.

In light of the company's prosperity and our past losses, any TA would probably fall short of our expectations. This one does. Several places where a few more gains should have been larger. Voting yes for 2 reasons, one is that this is the best we'll see in the next 2-3 years if we vote it down.

One could argue either way, but:

1 - There is a big effort to be completely transparent.
2 - Job loss estimates are pretty well vetted by Economic and Financial Analyis people - number crunchers.
3 - The VB and TDY "costs" and job losses will disappear if those some day go away.
4 - Profit sharing estimates - are estimates - and having them increase or decrease would be a bias. Keeping them constant is a fair way to look at them.

Why would you say the estimates for job losses are low? What specific information and data do you have?

When evaluating this TA, you cannot just look at the TA itself. You also have to evaluate the macro economic environment it has been negotiated in, where you think that environment is headed, how long it will be before you enter into negotiations in the future, and the possibility of "black swan" event happening while you are negotiating.

When adding in those factors, I gotta say I'm a yes.

Denny

We may not even need a black swan. Revenue has been in decline for almost the last two years masked by fuel prices dropping faster. Management has made repeated promises and set several dates when that would be corrected. So far they have missed every prediction on reversing the trend. I suspect 2016 will be the highest profit year. 2017 should not be bad since the fuel hedges are mostly done but increased personal costs will offset it. Fuel at 80 to 90 a barrel combined with a continued drop in ticket prices would probably push us out of the 20% profit sharing bucket completely.
We will see if the latest capacity cuts stem the tide.

Maybe, but the price of fuel seems to move somewhat with the economy lately. So if fuel is pushed back to that price range it could partially be to increased economic activity.

Basically - if the economy is strong enough to support $90/barrel with the increased oil production available the revenue trend may reverse.

In other words - who knows? :confused:

I am a yes vote but my personal thought is that the market for Pilots drives our leverage as much if not more than profits.

Scoop

The pilot shortage hitting Delta is at least 1 more contract away. I am stunned at the quality of pilots applying who can't even get a interview. Didn't the forum state for a fact there was no way they could meet their hiring goals this fall?

Two examples. First the estimate for the jobs lost by raising the ALV in the widebodies is off. The union guys said since the TLV remains the same there will be little to no change. We all the know the airline is staffed for summer flying. Another pilot at the road show did the math and confronted them. I was more impressed with his reasoning and numbers.

Second, the estimate on gains from the increased value of vacation and training is optimistic. Their numbers presume all pilots will only fly their schedule. But vacation and training are pay no credit...nothing prevents a pilot from continuing to pick up to the FARs.

There were other examples that came up.

Bottom line the union statement about staffing is.......extremely optimistic.

That said I think this TA will pass. I think the best reason to vote yes is that I believe our profits have peaked and by the time we could get another bite at the apple.....the apple will be smaller.

I tend to agree.

The more I think about it, the more the gutting of 3.B.4 is emerging as the big negative of this TA.

It's important to note that those numbers are solely for work rule change-based job effects. It does not address (it doesn't attempt to address) any change(s) driven by scope, for example.