An all 76 seater DCI. Wow. Never thought it would go far. Regionals sure have come along way from 19 seat turboprops. We keep chopping off the wrong end.

Where are the engine technology restrictions? I can't find them.

Sink r8
Are you a Professional Pilot/Mainline Pilot?
Or did you just spend a night in a Holiday Inn Express lately?

Seriously, always amazes me when someone backs up my claim that every pilot group has about 5-10% Idiots, Nut Jobs and Scabs/Scab wannabees.

Motch

Repost. :)

Anyone have the answers or forecast?

Unbelievable :mad: if you buy us a newish shinny jet well let you have even more job replacement aircraft.

Highly unlikely, especially if this TA passes. It provides furlough protection for all pilots on the list at DOS. If they furlough, they must physically remove 6 seats from every 76 seater and must operate them that way until the most junior pilot is recalled. They may also not use force majeure to get out of this. There are several more layers of improved furlough protection in this TA. I encourage you to read the latest Negotiators Notepad covering Sec 1 of the TA.

No answer, but have you heard anyone from the union or company say that this TA meant hiring? Has SD said it? Don't think so. They've called it growth, but there are many kinds of growth. You'd think if they thought it would generate hiring that they'd be beating that drum, but all I see are a lot of pretty graphs in the Negotiators' Notepads, none of which relate to job growth.

I think you simply have a different interpretation of the proposed scope. Some will view it as tightening scope. Others will view it as loosening scope. Vote as you feel appropriate.

It used to only say turbojet aircraft, now there is no distinction made for propulsion in the scope section. I.E. they can just go out and buy an unlimited number of Q400s or the like as they can in our current contract. A more pressing issue was making sure geared turbofans are included, and they were.

Yep, it is quite obvious the company plans on no furloughs for the next few years at least.

The 76 seaters having 6 seats pulled out has no exceptions.... any person hitting the street for force manure or whatever requires those 6 seats to be pulled out.

Frank-

I think your numbers on the pay increase are a bit overly optimistic, particularly including sick time and best case scenario on ALV increases on reserve.

Good analysis, though. We need to have good back and forth on here.

Okay. Thanks for the clarification. They will be able to have 325 geared turbo-fans with 70-76 seats. Got it. I was under a false impression that any geared turbo-fan would have to be flown at mainline. I could not find it in the TA. The reason is because it does not exist.

I have not been reading the forums over the holiday weekend but would like to through something into the pot. In my extended family, I have some people on the management side of labor, big business and not applebees. I showed them parts of the TA and the change from our old contract. They laughed at how little we receive with the leverage we had. They had been casually reading about the Delta news for awhile, because I am a pilot with Delta.

Before all of the YES voters go running to the polls. Talk to people who are not in aviation, both in management and labor. They will give you the correct reality check. Management wins BIG with this one and we, as Mongo would say,” are just pawns in where choo choo go”

Frank,

Thanks for taking the time to put your analysis in writing. I've been trying to stay open but I have to agree with seamonster. This TA is a win for DAL management and while I like some of the improvements, it's obvious the agreement was negotiated from a servile perspective. We just don't think we're worthy of anything more.

I also like to see a good back and forth and hope that we can keep it civil. I'm one of the guys that cares mainly for scope. I think we gave away too much with almost no return.

No. Geared turbo fans may NOT be flown anywhere but mainline.

FB, to try and answer your question........ a 5% wont cause (IMO) any furloughs. Too expensive for the company. BUT, the ALV will surely drop. Less flying, less hours, less $ in our pockets.

And if this TA passes (god forbid), the company must give a minimum of 90 days notice. I dont think DAL will furlough someone in Jan, and bring them back on in Apr.

Again, just my opinion.

Frank

Very good post. My reason for voting no is because of the above statement. If after massive pilot concessions over the last decade coupled with massive company profits, when are we going to draw the line in regards to scope? I see the 717's as largely replacement aircraft that the company needed to get anyway. My guess is that the next TA will volunteer to park all 50 seaters in exchange for 450 70/76 seat RJ's.

Once again, well thought out post.

Where is that written? I can't find it.

That is not in the TA Johnso. The TA is what matters, not what ALPA tells you.

I hope you continue to post. I welcome all opinions.
Just be careful not to leave the impression that you are a Delta pilot when commenting on our TA.
Just say you're not DL and there is no problem.

As far as the name calling --

tsquare is a highly valued contributor here. But you have to understand tsquare's style.
His rebuttals tend to be somewhat more, let's just say "personal", than the typical webforum debater. He takes no prisoners. Every forum needs guys like that. Keeps it more interesting.

Here's what I think -
His tone may appear to be overly harsh at times but I think that's just an internet persona. Secretly he probably has a beautiful flower garden, enjoys poetry and long walks on the beach at sunset. :D

But whatever you do, don't mention Lane Kiffin.

Incorrect. The TA just eliminates the possible loophole to operate turboprop or GTF powered aircraft outside the scope limits.

U pass ur dal TA and u will have an industry leading contract for a month, until ual gets way ahead.
Nothing of real significance but the time value of $ is achieved with this ta. Great contracts are achieved not given ultimatums with a few pieces of silver. Dal- always going for the quick dollar. Ual has been been beaten down for so long and hard that abfew more months is nothing but icing on our near decade of sacrifice. Cost neutral contract, rufkm? Scope with ur ta is still moving in the wrong direction. This contract is "x" amount of 76 seaters, in 2015 it'll be ,., awe come on let us put 86 seats in on "some " planes. .. Pilots just dont think long term..
Pass it and reap,what u sew

Skippy and others,

How about letting Delta pilots decide for themselves, and you guys decide your contract for yourselves? I promise to not hang out on the UCH board, telling you what's AFU in your contract.

It's a little like having a Frenchman telling me how I should vote in the next presidential election.

I would say that passing ur concessionary TA, increased hours worked, and decreasing scope doesnt affect me directly but im pretty sure it does indirectly. Vote, how u want and if u think u will be ahead of ual ur nuts and only hoping to catch up to SW .. In a few years
That TA is only leading the industry the wrong way for the future.

BTW.....How's that Derek Dooley doing??

Okay, I'll take your words of caution under advisement...

In the 25 years I've been at Delta, there haven't been a whole lot of years where we've looked enviously at the UAL contract.

Or out of base swaps :eek:

Zoomie does have point: I used the term "trolling" incorrectly.

As gor the others calling me an idiot for suggesting it's possible to continue trading 76-seaters, as long as we follow the trend of reducing mainline (an unpopular idea to be sure), I'd suggest you're fighting the last battle. Poorly.

I think pilot requirements, and excluded technology will serve to mitigate the least important end of the battle on Scope.

Basically, the RJ is a grievous mistake made in the past. It's crucial not to allow larger airplanes, which this TA doesn't do. Controlling the mix would be great, but it's not the most important problem in front of us. If the next contract cut 100 total DCI aircraft, at the cost of 25 conversions to 76-seaters, and it required, for example, an order of 50 more at mainline, and yielded better ratios(IOW if it continued the pattern of this TA), I would consider it another Scope gain.

I think the next contract will probably be less about Scope gains than economics. If anything, it will be about large-gauge Scope. The only thing that will be important on the small end will to keep the limit at 76-seats, and no geared turbofans.

To Zoomie's point, no new permitted types were added, and this TA doesn't force them to accept upgauged regionals, anymore than USAirways forced us to accept EMB 190's.

Frank,

Thank you for sharing your analysis. You say your minimum was 30% of total compensation. But in what time frame is 30% acceptable?
First 20.7%--that is as of 2015.

-2% profit sharing. This may be 0% if Delta doesn’t have a pretax profit.

.1% per diem, you are correct

3.1% sick leave--hopefully you won’t need to use any of it, but even if you did with Delta Pilot’s Mutual Aid (which you pay for every month) and disability you are essentially made whole for a year after sick leave runs out. I would submit that this is not really a pay raise although it is an improvement.

.1% Distance learning and CQ training, you are correct. However I would submit to you that your time is worth the same whether flying an airplane or doing training (as in any other profession). Why should you get 3:45 for a day of CQ while the seat filler sitting next to you gets 5:15?

10% as a function of Avg Daily Guarantee, applying to three trips per month. This could be more than 10% (i.e. the pilots who only fly lax-hawaii). This is actually just a reduction in days required to reach guarantee. Yes, it is an improvement, and long overdue. However, in your case in March, you would not have made more money, just worked less days to reach your monthly hours. This affects some (and probably most) pilots not at all and some a lot. The lax-hawaii pilots will work 3-5 days less to reach guarantee. This is an improvement in work rules and not a raise.

8% reserve pay. The amount of reserve flying has gone up and down throughout my career. Sometimes months reserves fly nothing and sometimes they fly the max. Don’t be fooled, this is not a raise but the ability of the company to fly you more. Calling this a raise is the same as saying flying 150 hours is a 100% raise. This will affect staffing and keep your captain seat out of your reach, which is a real raise.

Scope: The number of 76 seaters is where you should be looking. These seats are your captain seats, not mine. In my view no 76 seaters should be flown by anyone but Delta pilots.

ALPA seems to like comparing us to Southwest. They compare our 2015 pay rates to Southwest 2011 pay rates. What will Southwest’s rates look like in 2015? I don’t know.
I do know Southwest gets 30 hours pay for 7 days vacation. I do know our DC plan is better than theirs. I do know I would have had stock options at Southwest and I do know I would have been a captain at Southwest 12 years earlier. I do not know, but expect you would either be a captain or nearly so at Southwest. My point is when making comparisons, ensure you are comparing apples to apples.

Is this contract an improvement over what we have now? From what I can see the answer is yes with the possible exception of scope.

But the real question for us should be is it better than we can do if we send it back?
Is the company motivated to close a deal? Did Richard really put his absolute best deal on the table seven months early?

I believe we can do better. I believe the company is motivated for reasons we may or may not know. I believe Richard is way too smart to put his best deal on the table this early.

Sending it back may or may not work out for us. I am willing to take that chance. This deal is just not good enough, especially for the ladies and gentlemen that sit in the cockpit to my right.

Put me down as a no.

M

OK, I'm a regional pilot and have no real dog in the fight... However, I would one day like to NOT be a regional pilot anymore. So, for the love of god, DO NOT GIVE UP ANY MORE FREAKING SCOPE.

That is all.

As promised, here's my work. To my surprise, the numbers actually came out higher on the second pass. I should add a caveat, however: I'm neither a mathematician nor an accountant. I thanked the Lord in Heaven when I passed Differential Equations by the skin of my teeth.

I passed on your request to convert everything to cash and redo the math for two reasons: #1, the added complexity would give me another opportunity to screw things up, and #2 I would like to drink at least some beer on this layover.

Anyway, I invite you to scrutinize my math and find the errors. I'm sure there are many.

On a related note, I was wrong about Scope in my original post. Alaska doesn't go from 50% to 30%. On SEA-MSP and SEA-ATL, it stays at 50%. On SEA-LAX, there is no limit. It could be 100%. Consequently, I don't know how to calculate an accurate number.

===

+20.7% Pay Chart + Defined DCI = 19.7% cumulative increase in straight pay, +1% defined contribution per “Negotiator’s Notepad: Compensation.”

-2% Profit Sharing Loss per “Negotiator’s Notepad: Compensation.”

+.375% Vacation Pay. This is wrong. It’s actually +3.5%. Per “TA 2012i.pdf,” this TA adds 3.5 hours in the vacation bank for people with 0-5 years with the company. Assuming a 1000-hr year, (3.5/1000)*100% = +.35%

+.1% Per Diem. This is wrong. Per “TA2012i.pdf,” current domestic per diem = $2.00/hr. On 1 JAN 2014, that becomes $2.20/hr. Per APC’s pay table, I make $111/hr. Add current per diem, and that’s $113/hr. On 1 JAN 2014, that becomes $113.2/hr. 1- (113/113.2) * 100% = +.17%

+3.1% Sick Leave. 125 hrs @ 75% pay = 93.75 hrs. 100% pay brings that back to 125 hrs. 125-93.75=31.25. Assuming a 1000-hr year, (31.25/1000)*100%=+3.125%

+.1% Distance Learning + CQ. This is wrong. The correct number is +.227%. My April pay statement shows Distance Training Time of 00:38. Assuming I do it 4xyr, that’s 152 minutes total Distance Training Time. Per “Negotiator’s Notepad: Overview,” this pay is increased by 50%. 152min/2=76min. ((76-60)/60) + 1= 1.27. Thus, this represents an increase of 1.27 hrs/yr in today’s rates. Per “TA 2012i.pdf,” credit for a day in the Sims goes from 3:15 to 3:45. Assuming I attend once per yr (I know it’s actually a little more than that, due to the 9-month cycle, but I’m not good enough at math to figure that in.), that’s +1 hr/yr. (2.27/1000)*100%=+.227%.

+8% Reserve Pay. Per “Negotiator’s Notepad: Overview.”

Revised Reserve Total: +33.722%

+10% Avg Daily Guarantee. This is wrong, but your numbers will vary depending on your average schedule. In April, I was assigned NYC 73 Rotations 4414 (3 days, 11:35 block hours) and 4351, and 4415x2. I hurt myself because I forgot that I’m old and had to sick out the Grenaida trip (4351) and the two later Bogota trips (the 4415s). Let’s assume 4351 blocked as much as it did when I flew the trip in March at 9:44, and let’s assume the two later Bogotas (4415x2) blocked as much as the first (4414), at 11:35 apiece. (Note: I took 4 days of mil leave in April, so I could have gotten another of these trips. I’m not accounting for this.) The total block hours of my assigned trips = 31:03. Per ““Negotiator’s Notepad: Overview,” each of these trips would be subject to the Average Daily Guarantee of 4:30/day, for a total of 40:30 block hours. 31:03 = 31.05hrs. 40:30 = 40.5 hrs. 40.5-31.05=9.45. 9.45*12(months)=113.4. Assuming a 1000-hr month, (113.4/1000)*100%=+11.34%.

Revised Line Total: +37.062%

It's really that simple. Fewer lower paying jobs = more higher paying jobs. That concept is beyond ALPA's comprehension.

Gents, I've read your responses and will take some time to chew on them. I hadn't thought of Reserve pay in terms of increased work, and I hadn't thought of Avg Daily Value as reducing my days of work (as opposed to increasing my pay), among other oversights. Thank you.

Regarding narrow-bore scope, I see this TA as an overall improvement. Fewer DCI seats seems like a good thing to me.

Regarding sick pay, I have three young kids and lead an active lifestyle. I get sick. I get injured. That bump in sick pay matters. Will I use all 125 hours in a given year? Probably not, but this faced me with a choice: choose some arbitrary number lower than 125, or go whole hog. I went whole hog.

Again, thanks so much for your considered (and considerate) responses. I look forward to continued analysis of this TA from all sides as we work to arrive at a wise decision.

Don't forget if you use all 125 hours, you will have to participate in the contractually obligated sick verification process. Read all about it in the TA. It's not as simple as just calling in sick when you're sick.

Good points Frank. You're right -- this TA is an improvement, I just expected much more. If it passes, I will salute smartly and carry on...however, for now I plan to share thoughts and exercise my right to vote against it.

For all of the Pros and Cons in regards to the TA, nice job of keeping this thread professional guys!

Your decision about how to vote is your personal decision and I respect that. But I believe you misstated a fact.

If you are comparing the number of 76 seat RJ's Delta can operate at DCI under the current contract to the number that would be allowed if this TA passes then passing this TA decreases the number of 76 seaters, NOT increase.

If mainline were to add 88 B717's they would be able to fly the max cap of 255 76 seaters. This TA puts the limit below that level.

Fly Safe,
ZZ

Very true. The difference is they would need to park 102 70 seat jets.

Technically correct but the bottom line is that there are more total large RJ's. That's the threat/problem which cannot be ignored regardless of semantics and shell games.

Large RJ's can do flying currently performed by Delta mainline due to their economics. But you already knew that from the hundreds of times this fact has been pointed out.

You're absolutely right. Fewer outsourced jobs is what this TA does. More insourced jobs as well. Doing nothing and hoping the 50-seaters go away (after many years) keeps the outsourced flying high.

I'm not voting based on regional pilots, but I would think a smaller DCI is as good for them as it is for us.

It's.... really that simple.