Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

I've given this thing a lot of thought, looked at the bullet points from ALPA, and most importantly delved into the specific language... While there are some improvements, I just don't see how I can vote yes for this thing in it's current state. Here's why:

1. The ratios and such are neat, and with the 717 carrot it seems to spell growth, but the numbers just don't guarantee growth. On top of that, everyone official is dodging the issue of the possibility of the AirTran 717 pilots coming over with the airplanes. It could give some growth to us, but with the mainline airplanes that are going to be parked (replaced...) over the coming years, it will not be much. I'm overall for the idea, but the fact is we are giving DCI 70 long term viable airplanes in exchange for parking around 190 short term viable planes. So, while marginalizing the size of DCI we are increasing their scope of viability and longevity. The language needs to be tightened up on the exceptions particularly for me to vote yes on this.

2. The permanent Republic carve out. Need I say more? The only way I can be pleased with that is with a sunset agreement on their contract. This is a huge gaping hole.

3. Delta Private Jets carve out- we won the grievance on that, they got a cease and desist... and now we just give it to them? No.

4. I don't mind getting rid of profit sharing, but the pay increases are down right insulting and we had to give up some profit sharing for those insulting pay increases? They slapped us in the face with the scope stuff and loss of profit sharing, and didn't even bother telling us we're pretty by adding more pay?

5. RSV rotation guarantee and Reserve ALV+15 rule. The rotation guarantee is still not fixed for reserves, and going over ALV for a reserve is no longer voluntary in this TA. That alone is known to cost 300 jobs. This is supposedly offset by the early outs... which is next:

6. Early outs- as alluded to by Steve Dixon's letter today, they have no intentions of replacing the pilots that go off property with the early outs. What does this mean? They have no intentions of growing Delta mainline in this TA.

As indicated by the reps' comments, this TA came back well under the guidance that the pilot contract surveys gave. If the company wants this deal as bad as they seem to, they need to shore up some key points, and they can be fixed very quickly. Don't let the dangle of shiny used airplanes fool you into thinking this is growth for mainline- it is not, and they have been very implicit in making sure to not use the "g" word as far as those aircraft being delivered.

There are some definite positives, but there are just too many large un-tasty chunks to have to swallow in this on the first go.

Signing this thing in its current state is akin to walking into a car dealership knowing your maximum price and then taking the first deal that same day which was well above what you wanted to pay.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

I've given this thing a lot of thought, looked at the bullet points from ALPA, and most importantly delved into the specific language... While there are some improvements, I just don't see how I can vote yes for this thing in it's current state. Here's why:

1. The ratios and such are neat, and with the 717 carrot it seems to spell growth, but the numbers just don't guarantee growth. On top of that, everyone official is dodging the issue of the possibility of the AirTran 717 pilots coming over with the airplanes. It could give some growth to us, but with the mainline airplanes that are going to be parked (replaced...) over the coming years, it will not be much. I'm overall for the idea, but the fact is we are giving DCI 70 long term viable airplanes in exchange for parking around 190 short term viable planes. So, while marginalizing the size of DCI we are increasing their scope of viability and longevity. The language needs to be tightened up on the exceptions particularly for me to vote yes on this.

2. The permanent Republic carve out. Need I say more? The only way I can be pleased with that is with a sunset agreement on their contract. This is a huge gaping hole.

3. Delta Private Jets carve out- we won the grievance on that, they got a cease and desist... and now we just give it to them? No.

4. I don't mind getting rid of profit sharing, but the pay increases are down right insulting and we had to give up some profit sharing for those insulting pay increases? They slapped us in the face with the scope stuff and loss of profit sharing, and didn't even bother telling us we're pretty by adding more pay?

5. RSV rotation guarantee and Reserve ALV+15 rule. The rotation guarantee is still not fixed for reserves, and going over ALV for a reserve is no longer voluntary in this TA. That alone is known to cost 300 jobs. This is supposedly offset by the early outs... which is next:

6. Early outs- as alluded to by Steve Dixon's letter today, they have no intentions of replacing the pilots that go off property with the early outs. What does this mean? They have no intentions of growing Delta mainline in this TA.

As indicated by the reps' comments, this TA came back well under the guidance that the pilot contract surveys gave. If the company wants this deal as bad as they seem to, they need to shore up some key points, and they can be fixed very quickly. Don't let the dangle of shiny used airplanes fool you into thinking this is growth for mainline- it is not, and they have been very implicit in making sure to not use the "g" word as far as those aircraft being delivered.

There are some definite positives, but there are just too many large un-tasty chunks to have to swallow in this on the first go.

Signing this thing in its current state is akin to walking into a car dealership knowing your maximum price and then taking the first deal that same day which was well above what you wanted to pay.

Originally Posted by Brocc15

I'm right with you here. I was very optimistic about the TA, and because of how things were at my regional I expected the ALPA negotiators to be very good at negotiating for a great result, so I thought for sure once we get a TA I would be a yes vote. I thought no voters are typically hard headed nothings ever good enough personalities. Now I see I was completely wrong. The company wanted it expedited, and our MEC chairman said that results would not be compromised to expedite a TA, yet clearly they are compromised, and now I hear several people on here use that we get the raises sooner as a reason to vote yes! It is so wrong to me, and scary what that attitude could do to this industry.

What happens if this poor contract passes. We will get to the amendable date and have to negotiate for years after that while making the low amount negotiated today. So by forcing low pay now instead of using what we have negotiated and working toward a better result, we are just moving the timeline of not good enough pay further down the line.

Example: We go back to the table, negotiate 25% with 3% year over year but it takes two years, we now have better pay January 1st 2015.
Example 2: We accept this TA, it becomes amendable 2016, but now that they have the scope erosion they wanted they drag out our contract for 3-4 years and we don't have the pay we deserve until 2020.

Using the excuse of getting our smaller raise now is not only hurting us in the long run, it is hurting the industry and the contract negotiations for the other airlines as well. So please, think about if we are accepting a sub par contract just because of being impatient. If you truly believe this is a good TA, this does not apply to you, but if you are thinking of voting yes because it is expedited, please think twice.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

I've given this thing a lot of thought, looked at the bullet points from ALPA, and most importantly delved into the specific language... While there are some improvements, I just don't see how I can vote yes for this thing in it's current state. Here's why:

1. The ratios and such are neat, and with the 717 carrot it seems to spell growth, but the numbers just don't guarantee growth. On top of that, everyone official is dodging the issue of the possibility of the AirTran 717 pilots coming over with the airplanes. It could give some growth to us, but with the mainline airplanes that are going to be parked (replaced...) over the coming years, it will not be much. I'm overall for the idea, but the fact is we are giving DCI 70 long term viable airplanes in exchange for parking around 190 short term viable planes. So, while marginalizing the size of DCI we are increasing their scope of viability and longevity. The language needs to be tightened up on the exceptions particularly for me to vote yes on this.

2. The permanent Republic carve out. Need I say more? The only way I can be pleased with that is with a sunset agreement on their contract. This is a huge gaping hole.

3. Delta Private Jets carve out- we won the grievance on that, they got a cease and desist... and now we just give it to them? No.

4. I don't mind getting rid of profit sharing, but the pay increases are down right insulting and we had to give up some profit sharing for those insulting pay increases? They slapped us in the face with the scope stuff and loss of profit sharing, and didn't even bother telling us we're pretty by adding more pay?

5. RSV rotation guarantee and Reserve ALV+15 rule. The rotation guarantee is still not fixed for reserves, and going over ALV for a reserve is no longer voluntary in this TA. That alone is known to cost 300 jobs. This is supposedly offset by the early outs... which is next:

6. Early outs- as alluded to by Steve Dixon's letter today, they have no intentions of replacing the pilots that go off property with the early outs. What does this mean? They have no intentions of growing Delta mainline in this TA.

As indicated by the reps' comments, this TA came back well under the guidance that the pilot contract surveys gave. If the company wants this deal as bad as they seem to, they need to shore up some key points, and they can be fixed very quickly. Don't let the dangle of shiny used airplanes fool you into thinking this is growth for mainline- it is not, and they have been very implicit in making sure to not use the "g" word as far as those aircraft being delivered.

There are some definite positives, but there are just too many large un-tasty chunks to have to swallow in this on the first go.

Signing this thing in its current state is akin to walking into a car dealership knowing your maximum price and then taking the first deal that same day which was well above what you wanted to pay.

Originally Posted by Ralphie

This nugget from the DTW Council 20 letter on the ALPA boards..."Pilot overstaffing during shoulder flying months was a major issue for Richard Anderson. He has commented on this concern more than once to the MEC. The TA increase in ALV/TLV is projected to increase flying by thirty to sixty minutes per month per pilot and reduce staffing requirements." Wonder if ALV + 15 during the summer will help with that?

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

It was but most do not agree that 12.8% on the amendable date to be anywhere what they meant, not for the work rule changes et al.

Originally Posted by Ralphie

This nugget from the DTW Council 20 letter on the ALPA boards..."Pilot overstaffing during shoulder flying months was a major issue for Richard Anderson. He has commented on this concern more than once to the MEC. The TA increase in ALV/TLV is projected to increase flying by thirty to sixty minutes per month per pilot and reduce staffing requirements." Wonder if ALV + 15 during the summer will help with that?

Originally Posted by Free Bird

There was a time in this industry when the average pilot worked about 12-13 days a month. After the BK, PBS and other efficiencies, the average is at least 15 days a month. To vote yes for something that would cause the average Delta pilot to fly more days a month is ridiculous. Of course RA wants us to work more, if he had his way we would work 25 days a month.

Yet one more step towards making this a job that we do not want! Can someone please tell me why this is concessionary contract again? Obviously Ed still isn't sleeping well at night and this is their next chance at decimating this profession.

Originally Posted by Falconfly

I somewhat agree, but this sounds horrible to your average non-pilot worker bee and you gotta be careful knowing your audience. And by the way, who cares about working 25 days/mo if you want to and make a ton of money to do it..???.. Allow for working as many days/mo as legally possible but make it a money making proposition for the pilots.