Originally Posted by Reservebum (Post 1199563)

Well thought-out post Frank. I want to believe this is a good TA, I am just very skeptical. So I'll do a little public math myself here (open to criticism)

To me the breakdown of compensation increases looks like:
+ 19.7% Hourly pay (as of Jan, 2015)
+ 1.0% DC increase
- 2.0% in profit-sharing loss (maybe...)
+ .375% in vacation pay
+ .1% per diem
+ 0.0% Sick Leave (I won't possibly max out my sick pay)
+ .1% Distance learning + CQ Training
+ 0.0% Reserve pay (this is not an increase in pay, it's an increase in work)
=19.275% over 2.5 years.

however, lest we forget...

- 6% Inflation (at 2.4%/yr)
=13.275% of actual pay increases (over 2.5 yrs)


If you must add the Reserve guarantee, I would conservatively use the lowest number, and assume a 2 hour increase in pay:

+ 2.8% Reserve guarantee (+2 hr pay equivalent)
= 16.075% increase (over 2.5 years)


If you use the rosy scenario 10 hour increase in reserve guarantee as a pay increase, then:

+ 14.2% Reserve guarantee (+10 hr pay equivalent)
= 27.475% increase (over 2.5 years)


This 'best case' scenario still doesn't meet your 30% requirement, however.

This TA does increase pay significantly, I can't ignore that, but I also can't sign off on a TA that provides a modest 16% raise over 2.5 years AND allows more 76 seat aircraft on property...

I'm still a solid no.

Originally Posted by Zoomie (Post 1199576)

The bottom line is that any scope giveaway IMO is too much. Take it back, don't sell it.

Originally Posted by FrankCobretti (Post 1199499)

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.

Originally Posted by DLpilot (Post 1199583)

You cannot include sick time as a raise.

Originally Posted by FrankCobretti (Post 1199452)

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.

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44 (Post 1199592)

Why are you including sick time as a raise? Our current sick policy punishes us if we're sick too much. The new deal won't punish us, but it is not a raise. I have never been hurt or sick long enough to be punished. You also need to take out the 10 percent as a function of average daily guarantee. I would also take out the 8 percent reserve pay. It's probably more like and extra 3 percent when averaged out through the year.

FWIW, I have a few minimum requirements. One is scope. I cannot vote for anything that allows any more regional jets, big or small. Two is reserves need to be paid like lineholders. Three is we do not make anything worse than it already is to any part of the contract. This includes everything (profit sharing, taking a day off reserves in summer time, allowing a 7th short call, etc.). I feel my standards are fairly reasonable. This TA is a major fail to me. I strongly recommend voting against this TA. That's a little shot at ALPA. I don't understand why they keep saying the recommend it. They should not have to tell us have to vote. The thing should stand on its own. It clearly does not.

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44 (Post 1199592)

Why are you including sick time as a raise? Our current sick policy punishes us if we're sick too much. The new deal won't punish us, but it is not a raise. I have never been hurt or sick long enough to be punished. You also need to take out the 10 percent as a function of average daily guarantee. I would also take out the 8 percent reserve pay. It's probably more like and extra 3 percent when averaged out through the year.

FWIW, I have a few minimum requirements. One is scope. I cannot vote for anything that allows any more regional jets, big or small. Two is reserves need to be paid like lineholders. Three is we do not make anything worse than it already is to any part of the contract. This includes everything (profit sharing, taking a day off reserves in summer time, allowing a 7th short call, etc.). I feel my standards are fairly reasonable. This TA is a major fail to me. I strongly recommend voting against this TA. That's a little shot at ALPA. I don't understand why they keep saying the recommend it. They should not have to tell us have to vote. The thing should stand on its own. It clearly does not.

Originally Posted by Reservebum (Post 1199610)

I agree. ALPA should never try to push anything on us, we are paying them for their representation. Just state the facts, tell us you did the best you could, and leave the opinions for the APC forums...