I'm NY based, and I am pretty sure I am a yes vote.

 

Richard thinks the TA is cost neutral.

 

So 19% over the next 3 years is mediocre? We got 17% for the current 4 year contract, except this TA has a lot more improvements in other areas as well compared to our merger joint contract. You can debate the scope provisions and additional RJs, but don't forget the addition of 717s, DCI ratio, parking 148 smaller RJs, and other scope improvements.

 

Just to be up front I voted no on the joint contract. The excuse that we got the minimal pay rate increases in the joint contract was because oil spiked to $147/barrel. I told my rep then that oil would go down and we will look silly. It did and we did. Also the original joint contract had 2% more on the first year. I will not go into a discussion as to why that disappeared.

This contract has a lot of good things in it, let them add a couple more percentages to the pay rates and it will pass by a landslide.

 

Bill,

So many conveniently forget that this TA allows 70 more 76 seat Small Jets, unlimited numbers of a 90 seat turbo props, and a carve out for RAH? These are not scope gains. These aircraft will result in stagnation and fragmentation.

We don't even know if the 717's are actually going to show up. That is open to debate. Even if they do show up, they may bring pilots with them. We don't know how many will be allowed to accept the early retirement and when they will leave. We don't know if they will be replaced.

There are just too many unknowns in this TA. We have learned from the past that unknowns don't usually work for our benefit. The Company will take full advantage of every lousy loophole in the agreement.

 

No, all large turbo props are now grouped in with 70 seat jets, and they are capped at 102 in number, which is what they have now. The 717s are scheduled to come within 3 years, and the additional 76 seaters can only come in chunks along with 717s. Not all at once, only along with 717s. No AirTran pilots will come along, because their own scope limited the transfer to a sub-lease, and that is exactly how it is described. Not a sale, a sub-lease from SWA and Boeing. And ALPA will have to prove in the road shows that the loopholes people think they see are not really there.

 

So, you need only 2 more percent to vote yes? With every other gain or improvement in the TA, you would risk that and possibly delay a contract for maybe 2 more years over 2% more? Ok.

 

Bill,

I think you are wrong. I've read the TA. I've seen the carveouts. No amount of spin can change the language. The language is weak and nebulous. We don't have a good history of winning contract conflicts. Our lawyers pretty much suck. The Company is always able to exploit the weak links in our contract language.

I don't like what I have read. It's not good enough.

 

The first gen CRJ900 was a CRJ700 stretch which did not perform all that well. 76 seats was a "sweet spot" for that airframe's potential.

The Next Gen 900 is a smaller 1000 and has much better performance. It could carry more and the Company wanted > or = to 82 seats in it.

One sign of the difference is the two wingtips (FWIW). The Next Gen has the steeply raked over tips which add to span, while the first gen had the more upright design.

 

Slight tweak. The language was fine and our lawyers are fine. The problem was (and probably still is) that our lawyers practice politics first, then law.

One has to grasp the motivation for ALPA to partner with management in the outsourcing business. Once you understand, then the light will come on and you will understand the dynamics of our contract negotiations and the Company's decisions as well.

ALPA and Delta have partnered to outsource our work. What we gain is a percentage of money the company saves by not using us. So the equation is:


To get the lowest outsourced cost management and ALPA want the maximum number of cut rate competitors. That is why we stopped fighting the Republic arrangement. That is why there is no language to reduce the number of competitors (like a requirement that only ALPA pilots perform the work).

Additionally, when guys like me were at the regionals we wanted to establish our own scope to prevent whipsaw and cut rate competition from destroying our jobs (example .. Comair has been destroyed) The mainline MEC's did not want Regional Carriers striking deals directly with Delta and they used ALPA's exclusive right as a sole bargaining agent to block those efforts.

ALPA's attorneys know who signs their pay checks. If ALPA leadership does not want to reduce competition or allow regional scope then they find the legal tool to reach those political goals. The answer was their legal opinion that holding company language was not binding, using the reasoning that a non signatory third party could not be bound by a contract they did not agree to. (or something like that, the reasoning has always been a bit nebulous because it really is not accurate and the Reps who explain it are not attorneys ... it gets muddy) (apparently none of them belong to an HMO like ours ... we are third parties to the contract between UHC and Delta and UHC and your provider ... if you don't think you are bound .. think again)

Back when I ran litigation I would fire attorneys who lied to us. It is extremely dangerous to rely on Counsel who is telling you what you want to hear instead of the truth. In ALPA's case it could be argued that the majority of DFR litigation and quite a few of the strategic errors of the last decade was based on this single hinge point of legal reasoning (or justification).

Our current TA shows a slight evolutionary move in our holding company language. Our current Reps and Admin are mostly a generation removed from the manipulations necessary to create DCI, but some are still there. Whether or not they even understand the situation is an open question ... after all, they rely on their attorneys and their attorneys rely on the politicians. It is somewhat of a closed feedback loop.

------- How this applies to DPA --------

The DPA is an interesting political construct. It's leadership has taken the justifications which created this mess of outsourcing and actually believed them to be FACT. Even more dangerous than an attorney who lies to his client, is a client who believes those lies and acts on them.

ALPA did something that makes me angry. ALPA made the decision that some work was going to be outsourced. ALPA broke unity and ALPA ow has a decade long wake of tactical blunders resulting from the decision to outsource what became Delta Connection.

The DPA does something that scares me. They took ALPA's justifications and believed them. It is terrible to make the mistakes of the past a foundation for our future. ... and just as I wrote that, Carl gave me a beautiful example ...Delta is bound. Delta writes the checks and Delta makes the schedule. Delta certainly has the power to pull down a percentage of it's flying, as operated by third parties.

The irony is, the DPA believes the lies ALPA told them and uses them to justify removing ALPA. It's really kinda funny. It is rare to find such true irony. It would be a lot funnier if the Delta pay check wasn't used to pay the mortgage on my family's home.