Your theory. Mine...pilots saw it as a good deal.

If the rejection of the last deal was "good judgement", what makes you think this wasn't?

 

I'm not so sure its a "loss of wide body jobs" though.

Set aside the effects of VB for now (since we can and should immediately pull it down IMO) and the only part you can really point to is 48.5 going to 46.5. But that's not really a concession when you look at it in totality.

The current 48.5 is based off an asinine 4 year period. For most of that, they can go as low as they want with no limits to how low, as long as they hit 48.5 once. The current one still keeps the 48.5, but allows 46.5 on a hard yearly basis if 650K GHB's are protected, which is a lot more than would be protected even if the 48.5 JV ESK balance maintained.

It doesn't take a lot of math to see how a hard 46.5, even if perfectly maintained as a ceiling (which I don't think they can even do nor will they even try) will yield a greater balance in the TAJV than a no floor/no floor/no floor/48.5 would.

If their goal is to go as low as possible for one year and then catch back up, the TA provision would I guess allow that. But even then the job loss estimate would only be for a year. If the goal is to do as little flying with our pilots as possible on an ongoing basis, then the TA provision actually protects us far more even in the TAJV.

That said, either the previous or current language can be rendered almost meaningless by significant changes to equipment, so in that case both are equally lacking.

 

That's easy, it's called hypocrisy.

The pilots clearly, in overwhelming and unprecedented numbers, saw the value of this agreement. Too bad 4 reps didn't.

Great job Malone, Uvena, most of the MEC, and the Delta pilots.

 

...gonna be quite hard to get em next time when you have a number bigger than 80. That number is gonna smack us "the next time around"

 

I think almost everyone just saw this as a very good deal with very little downside. Thanks to Malone for his leadership and everyone involved for the serious amount of time spent away from home working to make the lives of their fellow pilots better.

 

thanks....

 

Was there a pay increase? If so, how much?

 

That's a bit overly simplistic. Perhaps some did see it that way.

For me, this was the outcome that I expected with the no vote last year. The money and QOL items were in the zone of reasonableness with no deal killing concessions. I also did not see any really productive path from a no. A change of CBA would be a complete failure, and I doubted we'd see anything actually come to fruition probably until 2020 with little upside. Most people I've spoken to saw it in a similar light.

 

Ya'll didn't expect us to believe Delta pilots would vote down two TAs in a row?

 

Ie., the TA was so reasonable that they didn't have to attatch conditional aircraft orders to it.