Right now, I’m voting “Yes.” Here’s my reasoning:

I break this down in terms of pay and scope. First, let’s tackle pay. I’m a 2008 hire 73FO, which means that some months I sit reserve and some months I fly a line. Since I’m bad at math and keep terrible records, I costed out the effect of the TA on a year holding a line and on a year on Reserve in my current seat.

First, Reserve:
+20.7% (pay chart + DCI)
-2% in profit-sharing loss
+ .375% in vacation pay
+.1% per diem
+3.1% Sick Leave, assuming I use all 125 hours
+.1% Distance learning + CQ Training
+8% Reserve pay

TOTAL = +30.375%

Next, Line:

+20.7% (pay chart + DCI)
-2% in profit-sharing loss
+ .375% in vacation pay
+.1% per diem
+3.1% Sick Leave, assuming I use all 125 hours
+.1% Distance learning + CQ Training
+10% as a function of Avg Daily Guarantee. This assumes it applies to 3 trips/month, as it did in March.

TOTAL = +32.375%

Going into negotiations, my minimum was +30% to my total compensation package. This TA meets that.

Now, let’s talk about Scope. As a junior guy, I care about small-bore scope because I don’t want my seat sold out from under me. I care about large-bore scope and the Alaska codeshare because I’d like to move up and I’d like to move to the West Coast.

First, we’ll go with small-bore. I’m not smart enough to understand block hours. I think in terms of seats. This TA puts 70 more 76-seaters in and pulls 125 50-seaters out. That’s a 930-seat subtraction from DCI. I can dig it.

Second, we’ll look at large-bore.

The TA does not change current Int’l JV’s, as near as I can tell.

Under our current agreement, Richard Anderson is not required to negotiate with us prior to entering into any int’l JV. Under the TA, he is. If we don’t come to an agreement, he must accept that Delta flying be 75% of revenue share in any new JV.

The maximum number of DAL seats on any Alaska flight goes from 50% to 30%.

Going into negotiations, it was critical to me that we rein in both small- and large-bore scope. This TA does that.

I’ve been obsessively reading APC for weeks, and I’ve followed the debate with great interest. I think my analysis is accurate, but I invite your criticism.

 

Good post and your bravery is acknowledged for posting that here.

But my dad says you are not even trying, that you walk down Court.

 

My honest opinion:

Especially as a low time FO...

You will regret this decision. You might get a quick bump of a few hundred numbers initially, but the after affects of giving up this scope will last the rest of your career. This might get you off reserve, but after a year or two and all the 717s are on property, you will stagnate and the only movement you will have will be due to retirements. Maybe there will be enough retirements so that you won't really notice and you'll slowly move up the chain of the seniority list, but if DL held the line on RJ scope, I predict you'd go up even faster.

I also can't believe that you really believe the math that you just put down on this message board. Ask a financial planner how much your "buying power" is really going up with this contract. I can tell you with 100% surety that you're buying power isn't going up by 30%, so you're kidding yourself thinking this is a 30% raise.

How's you're math doing keeping up with inflation? The DL MEC likes to tout a 20% cumultative raise, and selectively picks the economic principles it chooses to sell this TA to you.

They reiterate the time value of money when they released this TA, but they didn't mention anything about the affects of inflation on this TA. You're pay raises in this contract regarding pay rates are an 8.5% pay raise at best. The 4% bump on Jul 1st and the 3% raises in 2014 and 2015 will just keep you on the bar for inflation.

Why no mention of inflation? Does that not apply to pilots?

If the company offered you a contract that was 3% every year for 20 years, would you call that a 60% raise? I can guarantee you that management would sign that "60% raise" tomorrow.

If you pass this TA, DL will have moved the bar down on scope once again and keep giving it away. You see how long its taking CAL/UAL to negotiate a contract trying to put that genie back in the bottle? It's almost impossible. The least DL could have done is hold the line on 70 seaters and let them die out.

The reality is that this scope will most likely delay your upgrade to CA by a few years. That is because DL has now set the precedent for a non-bankruptcy contract. That precedent will now be, give up scope and profit sharing, get a raise. DL management sold the "zero sum" game to the DL NC hook line and sinker and they swallowed it whole. Now upgrade to CA would be a real 30-50% raise based on what airline you're at.

You think that next contract you won't give up more 76 seaters? Why not? You did on this one. Maybe next contract it will be 90 seaters. Maybe they'll give you another 10% pay raise.

RJ flying already accounts for > 50 % domestic flying. They're already doing international and these 76 seaters have even longer range than the 70 seaters, especially since their really 90 seaters configured to 76 seats.

What happens when the company says "We'd like to make another order for widebody aircraft and some more LNB aircraft, but we're not going to do it unless you give us another 100 76 seaters, and let us configure 70 of them to 90 seats.

Will you take this bait as well? What is you're line in the sand?

 

Hey troll (zoomie).. nobody cares what you think... Your group is so far behind the power curve that the stick shaker gave up and bailed out.

But on payrates alone at the end of this agreement Corbetti will be making $12/more than your super premium FOs. So yeah.. it is a total hose job.

Unless of course you settle your differences with CO and get a SLI... and JCBA... in the next 2.5 years... like THAT's gonna happen. And even if it does, we'll jump right over you again at that point in time because we will be at another amendable date.

 

Mr Corbetti. It is refreshing to see someone that actually has looked at the big picture and made a decision based on that. I commend you sir. Nicely done.

 

I've been working to beat the inflation drum for quite a while and no one seems to be picking up on this. Don't forget that official government inflation figures leave out food and energy (I didn't see anyone exempting me from paying my utility, gasoline and food bills). By the way, I just looked it up and Gasoline was $2.98 in my state and is now $3.86 (that's over 30%) and my utility and food bills haven't gone down either and this contract won't cover the past increases or future increases in my cost of living.

 

Zoomie, here's how I understand your argument:

1. It's only a 20% raise, which isn't even enough to keep up with inflation.
2. (a)The TA is a scope giveaway. (b)Don't count on 717s to help you out.

Here's my response:

1. It's either a 30.375% or 32.375% raise, once you look past the number on the chart and look at the entire package. I considered inflation when I set 30% as my minimum.

2. You failed to prove 2(a). Regarding 2(b), I ran my analysis assuming the only life I've ever known at Delta, which is stagnation with some slight rise due to retirements.

 

What is the matter with you? I really doubt, and really hope, you don't speak to people like this.

I prefer this forum over others because of the relative civility - maybe you should simply offer us your opinion and stop condemning everybody else who might have an opposing view.

 

Oh, and hey, thanks for the kind words, Bar & T.

 

Zoomie,

Your call sign didn't happen to be "Ace" was it?