Here is an issue I can wrap my brain around, and agree with one hundred %. I am philoshically opposed to any tweaking of any DC rates, as I said elsewhere. The minute you try your hand at social engineering on this issue is the minute you wipe out any hint of unity or fairness for at least one important aspect of the contract.

We on the S side lived briefly with an infamy called "the Matrix", a pre-BK piece designed to supplement our (then) frozen retirement. Based on expectations, not LOS. You had guys in the same class getting 6% and 18, the older getting more. Luckily, this was fixed (for all of us).

I for one don't think it is right to subsidize the career choices of another pilot. If someone started at Delta older, it's for reasons that are strictly particular to their life. Maybe those reasons come with a second retirement?

I don't have the specifics of your situation, and I don't what retirement, if any, you have, but on philosphical grounds, I agree with you that we cannot have two people getting different DC rates. Different DC net contributions because of seat of equipment, absolutely. But no different rates.

Now, here is a post that makes another valid philosphical point, but still deserves a BS flag, IMO:

If the PWA/JCBA doesn't address this specifically, then obviously, your anniversary date should match our policy. Clearly your argument is morally correct, and your point is fair.

But when you say you won't vote for any contract that doesn't have that provision, I think you're a) lying, or b) being just a bit overdramatic. If a contract could contain all the big picture items we as agroup strive for, we should vote for it. I started this thread to see what consensus might exist as to what people want, and because the "Latest & Greatest" thread was becoming a [I'll delete it myself, thank you]. I didn't do it to appease single-issue pet-peeve voters. I'm not even sure this will identify all the important picture items, or if any of this will matter. But it's worth a shot. So, if you really have to have your three months, and nothing else matters, then you're not interested in my issues, or in the big issues that the majority could identify, and push through.

With that being said, welcome to APC, and welcome to this discussion.

 

keenster-
It's 13 hours at Delta.

(18 if your flight was longer than 13 hours)
It can be as short as 11 hours due to unscheduled delays.

If I understand your question, the minimum break in duty away from base following a Transpac flight is contractual and it is found in PWA Sections 12.G.11 and 12.G.12

Here's those sections:

11. Following a trans-oceanic duty period, an international category pilot will:
a. be scheduled for a break-in-duty away from base of at least:
1) 13 hours after a scheduled duty period of 13 hours or less.
2) 18 hours after a scheduled duty period greater than 13 hours.
b. receive an actual break-in-duty:
1) away from base of at least:
a) 11 hours after a scheduled duty period of 13 hours or less.
b) 14 hours after a scheduled duty period greater than 13 hours.
2) at base of at least 13 hours.

12. Prior to a trans-oceanic duty period, an international category pilot will:
a. be scheduled for a break-in-duty of at least 13 hours.
b. receive an actual break-in-duty of at least 11 hours.
Exception: An international category pilot who deadheads on a domestic or intra-theatre flight and is released for a break-in-duty prior to a trans-oceanic duty period will receive an actual break-in-duty of at least eight hours.

 

Weren't those contractual changes done in conjunction with a CFR change in ULR flying that Delta negotiated with the feds? The changes CAL and AMR opposed thereafter?

 

You can call BS all you want to. The more i read on these boards and talk to buddies who are DAL-S guys the more i realize we are very different in one huge aspect. You guys (DAL-S) have, for the most part, a very "go with the flow" mentality. DAL-N is NOT! You have merged with an extremely militant pilot group that will fight tooth and nail for what is fair. We aren't asking for anything more than we are contractualy afforded, but we won't accept less than that either.

I never said I have to have my 3 months and nothing else matters. It's the principle of the matter. I will not support a contract that doesn't fix the holes in the one we have now, plain and simple! What's right is right. Why should DAL-N pilots be on a different Logevity Scale than the South guys? When you couple this with the different DC Contribution % it starts to add up into a big deal. Or is this still not big picture enough for you? You won't hear me *****ing about the Seniority List Integration or how my carreer expectations have changed, etc.. What's done is done. But don't come on here and tell me that i'm lying or being overdramatic because i am demanding to be treated the same as my co-workers who are working under the exact same contract as me.

You say you didn't start this thread for single pet peeve items, but rather for big issue items. Well I can assure you if you were in our shoes and had stomach our "B Scale" issues it would be a big deal to you! You think I won't vote NO on a contract that doesn't fix these petty issues? Watch me! And gues what, i promise you I won't be the only one.

 

You said:

There are a LOT of principles that are important to this pilot group. There are many of them that demand a "no" vote, because they belong at the top of most lists. We agree on that. We're trying to figure out what they are right now. We can agree that people cannot be treated in a sort of B-scales, from Reserves, to DC funding. I support your stance in that regard.

But when your first post says that we can't count on you, no matter what, because you can't get a couple of %, for three months, from now until your twelve-year point (how far away is that, and how close are you now, with longevity restoration, and how many pilots are affected?), then I have to say your vote is not worth pursuing. What you're telling everyone else here is that some issues might matter to them, but here is the final hurdle we HAVE to jump over to make you happy.

This isn't a "go-with-the-flow", a N/S issue, or a fairness issue. It's not even a question of whether your gripe is valid or not. It's a question of you demanding satisfaction on a particular point, upfront. If your vote can't be bought for the things that are big on most everyone else's list, then your vote is too expensive.

 

Apparently you weren't militant enough to get your 3 months.

I follow DAL/NWA current events pretty closely and I've never heard of this issue before.
Did you raise it when the JCBA was being negotiated?

I agree with you though and I welcome you to Delta.
We need all the militant no voters we can get.

 

Sinkr8, i understand what your saying. I just feel very strongly about this issue from a stand point of principle. Am i being overdramatic? maybe. But i feel this is something that can't go over looked. I have brought it up countless times to my reps, but of course it doesn't affect them so it usually falls on def ears. In 2 years it won't affect me anymore since I am a '99 hire. But it still will continue to pi$$ me off. For the Junior ('07-'08 hires) this could be as much as $600/mo. Over a three month period you're now talking $1800 a year less than what a FDAL guy who is junior to him is making. Now mulitiply that over the course of the next ten years til they get to the 12 year mark and you're talking some real money. This doesn't even address the different DC %.

CheckEssential, to answer your question, i have brought this up time and time again. I did vote no on the JPWA because of the different DC % for the 2 groups. Honestly, at the time we voted I didn't even think about the longevity issue. I assumed it would be transferred to the DAL way of using your INDOC start date. When i realized it hadn't changed I started bringing it up to my reps. (I'm not the only one) but all i have gotten from them is "we are aware of it but it's not at the front of the line on things to get changed". I was out on furlough for a while after 9/11 and came back to a fraction of the pay i had when i left and I have basically no pension. I am not bitter in the least about the circumstances except for some of these petty differences between the two pilot groups working under the same contract. It just boggles my mind that management wants one big happy family, however, we are treated differently in certain respects.

I guess a better way to put it would be; I will vote NO on any contract that doesn't do away with the different treatment between the FNWA & FDAL guys. Other than this issue, I am happy about the merger and look forward to working with you guys.

 

Thanks. We're on the same page. We weren't really that far off to begin with. I'm trying to bring out issues, so we can all discuss the contract we need. Once we get started down this kind of road, someone invariably starts drawing lines in the sand for everyone else. Please understand I'm not trying to supress your views, or suppress any item people want to argue for. I just expect everyone to make their own decision about how to vote.

I don't disagree with any of your principles. I would very heavily weigh equal treatment of all pilots, across the seniority list, both in terms of N/S, and in terms of junior/senior.

Regards,

Sink r8

 

Volav8r1, My pay seniority date was the same as yours and used basically the same start date of the first in our class to hit the line. I don't know when that changed at the big D but I agree it should be the same for all.
Finis

 

Welcome to the club.

I'm one of what we at Delta call the "deadzoners".
Defined benefit gone. Too junior to get more than a pittance from the "ALPA Notes".
Too old to make it up on defined contribution.