Noticed there is no mention of the loss of income due to change in profit sharing. I am very close to being a 'yes' voter, the the loss of scope protection is pushing me toward the 'no' side, and it does not (directly) affect me. THIS time around. I hope to leave this vocation in a better position that I found it in when I got here. If we could fix:
scope
profit sharing
it would win me over to a yes. In present form, I can't support it. It would've been nice to get more in direct wages. But I won't trade that for scope. There is a reason very good reason scope is in section 1 of the contract. At least there used to be....

 

The simple fact that there are even people "leaning toward yes" scares me. Pilots are easier to brainwash than I thought.

 

I this case, the problem isn't the content, but the user. He isn't making it real obvious in this thread, but Zoomie isn't a Delta pilot. Which doesn't mean he's not entitled to an opinion, but the full-court press by an OAL pilot doesn't seem appropriate to me either. He's not going to have to live with the consequences of accepting or rejecting the TA.

 

Whatever TA we accept does have a benefit/consequence to those that are currently in negotiations.

 

They should never have done it when the entire MEC votes YES. The fact that 5 members voted NO and they're still advocating instead of informing is disrespectful to this group. Again.

Carl

 

Thanks Frank. I appreciate you posting your math and thinking. I had tried to do something similar, but you've confirmed for me that this does not meet my minimum pay raise criteria even in the rosiest of scenarios.
I am a no.
Danimal

 

Not really. Everyone is free to negotiate/vote independently. If Smizek wants to argue that this TA is what makes him want RJ's, it's up to the UCal pilots to remind him a crack addict wants crack all day long, not just when they watch the Chapelle Show.

But let's assume you're right, and we should negotiate for one another... Then the UCal pilots have really screwed us by not getting, in a timely manner, a contract with good pay and even better Scope for us to pattern over.

Feels like they have been waiting for us to take the lead. In which case they're not in a great position to tell us what to do. Some have offered an opinion, and I think it's fine, but Zoomie's decided to insert himself into the discussion beyond the reasonable, and into troll territory.

 

So how will you vote on scope in 3 years when this contract is amendable? You know they will ask for more scope relief on large rjs again. If you set a precedent that you will vote for scope relief during times of high profits, well its all down hill from there. There is no "gun" to your head like in bankruptcy. Just saying.

 

Good question. I think we negotiate for tighter ratios again. Let them all be 76- seaters, but cap DCI at 350. Tighten mid and large-gauge Scope further. Require yet more mainline orders for the last 25-seaters. I think by then, the regionals are possibly really hurting for pilots, and can't staff additional aircraft. By then, engine technology restrictions in this TA also make 76-seaters less relevant.

 

What have I said that can be considered trolling? Two people have stated this, but I haven't insulted anyone and all I do is come up with facts and some opinions on scope.

Are we afraid of facts or are we just afraid that I'm threatening your meager pay raise by influencing people at DL with some interesting discussion. If you disagree with me, join the argument and break my argument. I haven't seen anyone do that here. I've seen a few no voters here agreeing with my argument. Perhaps I need to work on my delivery a bit.

I have started a few threads here because I hadn't seen any discussion going on the few topics I posted. Now there's discussion going on.

If DL guys who are obviously "yes" voters don't like my facts, their in denial. If they don't like my opinions, I'm fine with that, but I am entitled to an opinion. When we get our TA, I welcome your input.

As for CAL/UAL getting a contract, no one has refuted that we've already waived off DLs current contract twice. I've stated this before, yet some people like to tout how great DLs contract is...quit sugar coating your contract.

Will this make the DL "yes" voters feel better...?

- DLs current contract is better than CALs
- DLs current contract is better than UALs

There are some items in CAL/UALs which are better than DLs (CALs scope comes to mind), but overall DLs contract is better. I thought it was pretty obvious from my posts that I'm not stating that other contracts at other legacy airlines are "great" contracts.

That doesn't mean that DL guys need to accept another substandard contract because no one else has raised the bar. I'd love for DL to get an early contract, but don't accept an early contract if it has concessions in scope. Don't you think DL guys deserve more?

Do you want the UAL/CAL guys to waive their magic wand and "miracle" a TA out of thin air? It's obvious that the management at DL is a bit easier to deal with than Smisek. So we've got our work cut out for us.

We've been working for over 4 years, DL negotiated for 2 months. I'm impressed they got something this quick, but I guarantee that had we could have this same contract yesterday if we conceded the number of 76 seaters that are in this TA.

I'll stop posting now in this thread since I didn't realize it was "DL only"