Here's why I plan to vote Yes.
 

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?

I guess some can see sarcasm and some can't. I thought UT guys were a little brighter.;)

I wish I could see the formulas that you used to calculate the percent increases. Something seems odd about the numbers.

I could be very wrong, but there is no way your W-2 is going to reflect a 32% pay increase. I don't believe it.

Instead of using just blanket percentages, can you convert that to dollars and cents and see if you end up with a 32% increase in dollars?

One small correction, this TA pulls out 218 50 seat jets, not 125. The net change in DCI seats is -5580.

KC10, I'll be happy to reconstruct and "show my work" during tomorrow's layover. Perhaps we'll find an error.

Alfa, thanks for the correction.

Answer this question honestly. Which would you rather have at DCI...50 30-seat Brasilias or 10 EMB170s?

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.

Fair enough. I don't suffer fools nor trolls well though. Zoomie is nothing but a troll and his opinion should be worth nothing to this group. It is really really sad if it does have any value.

Frank,

Pretty good breakdown with one possible exception, I believe you might be making a mistake with the average daily guarantee. Out of LAX this would only apply if you were basically flying all three day 10.5 hour trips that sign in prior to 2200. On the LAX bid package only a few trips consistently meets this requirement - the SAN redeye and the MCO red-eye.

The SNA trip often goes fairly senior but you can probably get all the MCO that you want. :eek:

So if you plan on flying out of LAX - three day 10.5 hour trips might regrettably still be in your future.

Scoop

Naaaaaah I signed my letter of intent with an 'X'. Had to have 2 witnesses watch me to confirm I said I was who i was...

Tsquare.

I'm not the one who's resorted to name calling.

What about my post is inaccurate or worthy of the insult you're spitting out?

Does inflation not exist?

I won't get to vote no on this since I'm not a super Delta pilot like you. You act like DLs contract is the best thing since sliced bread.

You don't want to admit that this TA is selling scope for a modest 8.5% pay raise. That's a fact when you take inflation into account.

Do you think that DL management will be the same forever? What happens when someone who isn't as pilot friendly as RA sees you're "scope protections" in this TA?

All legacy carriers have been hosed by scope, and some people will never learn.

Might want to lay off that 6th cup of coffee, you seem to get worked up over a simple conversational thread.

I'd say you're math is a much more realistic picture of this TA which takes inflation into account.

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

You first.

You cannot include sick time as a raise.

ethically, at least.

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.

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...

I agree with everything you wrote. Things like working an extra day in the summer or 7 short calls is a concession. Those items have a cost to us. As such you must include those items in your total compensation package.

Stupid question from the bottom of the seniority list ...

We just announced a 5% pullback in flying starting after this summer. And if this TA passes, it seems to me like DAL will need less pilots. 5% of 12000 is 600 pilots.

And how does the new work rules fit into all of this?

Any chance of the dreaded F-word happening?

Inflation HAS to be factored into compensation rates. I can't believe it was not even mentioned in any of the ALPA correspondence. What gives?

- Delta certainly raises ticket prices to compensate for inflation.
- A zero (0%) pay raise over 3 years is actually a 7-8% pay cut, so...
- A 19% pay increase over 3 years is therefore only actually around 12%.

Don't believe inflation exists?
Try the Bureau of Labor statistics Consumer Price Index (CPI)
or
Annual Inflation Chart

Exactly, that's why i brought it up in another thread, and apparently some of us are just happy to be spoon-fed important info to decide our future. I just find ALPA's way of selling this TA anyway possible is a bit distasteful. I can stand for personal recommendation from my reps, but as an organization that represents our whole pilot group, they should encourage us to read the TA, stress test it, discuss it, and talk it over with our families and decide. A simple "Vote Yes" from our union just don't cut it.

I'm very pleased that my LEC reps never try to "sell" me this TA. I am not pleased that they view 75 extra jumbo RJ is acceptable in light of other improvements in our scope section. I am not pleased we are yielding to our hard thought reserve rules to something that only benefits a few, but then allow the company to pound on the junior reserve pilots even more so than before. Did I mention these reserve rules equates to 300 job losses?

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"