So from what I can tell this contract allows 33 more 76 seat RJs immediately without any additional mainline aircraft if I am reading this correctly. And there is a caveat to the production balance ration that by adding these 33 more the ratio does not need to be followed until even more are added. Is that how you all are interpreting this? So regardless of if we get more airplanes at ALL we give up more 76 seat flying?

Edit: Disregard above post, it was a misunderstanding of the contract and is incorrect.

 

So, the 717s have been a done deal and we are the launch customer for 10 pump and dump C series jets.

intercourse the off list 76 seaters.

 

It is a standard type Force Majeur clause.. look into it. This is a non issue. ALPA would lose enforcement anyway once the company goes to court to prove it's survival is at stake. There are more important things to worry about than this. It would not apply however to self inflicted wounds however. We would not have to bail the company out (thru contract modification) if they do something stupid.

 

Ok, I am nice and relaxed now. With a clear mind I will let you know my overall position on this TA:

It is a concessionary contract, with inflation and the cost of energy far surpassing what the government tells us, the rates of 4,8.5,3,3 is a pay-cut. Pilot productivity has increased which is good for the company and an illusion that you will make more (BUT YOU WILL WORK HARDER).

Coincidentally,RA has stated he would love to have the SWA contract because the company gets more productivity from us with more ability and outs to outsource (yet he doesn't want pay us like them). ALPA also gets their DCI pilots a hope for bigger and better things in the future, thus more revenue. Yet we help the company one more time with career stagnation and paltry pay so that the company can acquire different assets and hoard all the profits.

Maybe our union and negotiators are extremely smart and want to save face with management. Maybe they know that no pilot in their right mind would vote YES for this concessionary piece of garbage. There are too many exemptions and loopholes in the sections. If this thing goes through, plan on a lot of issues and complaining in the future.

Please read and question the exemptions and clauses. The road shows will be a sales job. If you ask "tuff" questions, know that you will be bombarded with kool-aid and treated as a complainer. Just like when T O'M implies that there might be a narrow-body order or growth for the Delta pilots. He doesn't promise anything. And the word "Delta pilots" can very well be the future other airline pilots that we fund for and acquire (i.e ALASKA/HA).

Still re-reading TA, but it doesnt get better for me.

TEN

 

I'm almost certain the limit was already 153. If your 33 number is based off the struck out 120, that was already ammended. It is not new. If DAL wants to add a single 76 above the current contract limit they must first take delivery of a new 717/319. Then they have to dump 3 50s by 01 jan 14.

 

QUESTION....
I realize it's ONLY been 24 Hrs-"ish" since the TA language has begun floating around on the web. Has there been any timeline laid out as to when the MEC/NC "Roadshow" are going to kickoff?? Any mention as to when the voting opens/closes regarding the TA???

From one UCAL guy......We're keenly watching from the sidelines, and hoping that the DAL Pilots stand strong. It goes w/o saying, the Camel's nose is already in the tent, let's keep his a$$ out.

Thanks & good luck.
SC

 

I don't think it's fair to call this a "pay cut". A pay cut would be taking what we make right now, and cutting it. I think its important to remember that if we don't ratify this, we will have the same pay rate on 1 Jan 13 as we do now. If we do ratify, we will have higher pay on that date, plus higher pay as of the DOS. Your W2 is going to be bigger, and even more so if you do end up working more. So its most certainly NOT a pay-cut. The question is if the gains are worth the other details gained and lost in the TA (i.e. work rules, etc), but its important to call it what it is.

 

Yep that is where I got that number from. Thanks for the correction

 

"And what happens if they don't?"

See if that's in writing.

 

Guys and Gals,

Read the MEC Chairmans letter again. It is filled to the brim with justifications for the deficiencies in this crappy TA. He knows its bad from the beginning and immediately starts the sales job. If he really believed this was a good deal, he wouldn't spend the majority of the letter defending it. The MEC and NC know this is NOT what we expect. Send them back into negotiating with a solid NO vote. Everyone seems to be so proud that we were able to get a TA so soon. Whats so great about getting a poor TA rapidly?

For me I don't need to read a single sentence past 4,8.5,3,3 especially when we loose profit sharing. Its just that simple.