30.2% over the life of the agreement.

 

Spot on.......

 

Some of us thought they were smoking crack with the new opener and many people did not think they were serious. Especially outside the industry. But it was a relatively good strategy in the end because it did drive the end result higher somewhat.

TA2 fixed a lot of the problems with TA1 and added about 5% more compared to TA1 and another one in January 1, 2019.

That being said I like this TA better.

 

I agree that we should have devastating non compliance language built in. I don't agree that the ridiculous selling of the grievance was adequate, nor was it proper. Going forward, we need to seek injunctive relief to force the pull down of whatever amount of code share is necessary to get back into compliance. That disgusting A340 a day into MSP would be a good start. AF can do it, but it won't get a single pax of feed. That and one more would get us into compliance, or they can let us do it. Either way, not our problem. I agree we need to play hardball in that.

I still like yearly periods more than the 4 year period including a one year "cure period". I'd rather be guaranteed 46.5 as an absolute floor (and statistically it will be higher than that anyway) every year than to allow them to be in compliance with 48.5 for a little bit (couple years max) and then back down way lower than 46.5 for a few years only to touch 48.5 once, etc. Yes, its an average, but its only a 2 year window for that average, versus a 4 year window that only requires touching 48.5 one year to be in compliance after 3 years of potentially zero. If they theoretically did zero now, they'd have to go a lot higher than 46.5 the next year wouldn't they?

Believe me, I'm disappointed in our "half" and how its defined, etc. IMO we need both a hard deck 50% ESK and BH any JV. Any one metric can go below that within a reasonable window, but if it does, the following year it must go above 50% by the same amount. Any violation is subject to injunctive relief as well as specified penalties, like pulling lots of seats out of their precious RJ's, etc. That's what we should work towards.

 

Sooo, do I get the one hour of pay for SC today? I read the NN and I didn't see anything in there.

 

We didn't gift them anything, our previous MEC Chairman was so certain we would vote yes on POSTA15#1, (can't remember what we call it these days) that he worked out a deal with management for $30 Million with no changes to the language because the TA he knew would be ratified, reset everything and would bring the company back into compliance. Unfortunately, the grievance settlement didn't require ratification. Just a slight oversight by MD and we were going to have to wait four more years before revisiting the weak stick JV language and grieve it again.

I think our union was kind of neutered by the sloppy handling of the first TA wrt the JV grievance because of their assumption that we were all willing to eat that $hit sandwich and the problem would be forever corrected in the company's favor.

Now, having said that, I'd love to see better language. Watching AF/KLM, and all of the other foreign airlines slam all of our cities with their heavies while we serve maybe one or two cities in each of their respective countries, sometimes none, makes me ill. Open skies favors every other airline much more than it favors us...in my opinion any way. But if we think we can force Delta to operate flights to destinations they don't want to serve, we are kidding ourselves. We had furlough language in our C2K contract that we all thought protected everyone on the list, until it didn't.

I don't really know what the right answer is. I'm not saying this language is better than the previous language, but I did think having to wait 4 years to grieve their non-compliance was rediculous. I do think code shares and JV's are here to stay. I like the year to year review so we can address noncompliance sooner than our previous language. I just don't know how we can truly enforce a scope clause that forces the company to do flying they don't want to do or can't do profitably. And if you think having highly punitive penalties attached to our scope clause, Management would never agree to a contract with language like that. Just like they'd never agree to 10% raises annually after the contract becomes amendable as an incentive for them to work with us on a new contract.

Fire away, in my defense, I've had a little wine tonight.

 

There is a table below and it shows suit up pay and credit will go into effect no later than 1-1-17, so probably then and not sooner I'm sure with the wording. It's section 4 H. 3.

 

If you exceed guarantee. 1 hour pay and credit towards guarantee for unused short calls.

 

Do us all a favor and retire tomorrow....

 

This is where I feel we failed in allowing the negotiation to be framed as a comparison to TA1, which was soundly defeated by the pilot group, vice what we actually desired. We had an opportunity to drastically reframe the debate citing the first ever down vote coupled with pretty dramatic union turnover but instead went for the easier route of "focus plus." We never even broached retirement or medical, even as a potential give aways for other gains. I feel a significant amount of the yes vote was with very serious misgivings, with fear of never getting anything better given our recent TA counters history.