I do agree with you on this point. Giving up a bunch of stuff to help them do what they were going to do anyway is just plain dumb from a bargaining standpoint. Some people seem to lose all sense of intelligence when a few sweaty dollars are waived in their face. Think long term man!

 

I think it's just plain dumb to turn down the offer to have a share in the wealth of the company based on a principle that has failed every other pilot group before us. What makes us so different? I want to learn from the mistakes of others and not KNOWINGLY leave money on the table like we did during the JCBA negotiations. That's just plain insane. That's LONG TERM money that we will never get back. if those 717s that we didn't want go to DCI (and they will), that's LONG TERM flying, hiring, money that we will never get back. You will see that we have real job security built into this TA if you read it or call your Reps to get the explanation.

 

Yep.

Recognize that "emotional obstinacy" kept all of us from having an extra 2% on the pay charts over the last 4 years, which has resulted in THOUSANDS LESS in each of our bank accounts.

 

You are not a good historian. Other pilots groups have voted the first proposal down and done better on the second round.

Now some question for you:

1. If management offered a 4% raise each of the three years would take that deal?

2. If we allowed 10 777's to be flown by Republic pilots in return for management parking ALL of the 50 seaters you would take that deal?

3. You seem to be basing part of your decision to always vote yes on the notion second offers will always result in money being left on the table. So for you it is always an automatic yes vote if you stand to gain even one dollar (ignoring the fact management had no problem taking over 50% of pilot pay in a very short period of time) and work rules are being further gutted from what was taken during BK?

4. If the new reserve rules permanently decrease the need for pilots and the large RJ's produce an efficiency that allows them to fly mainline routes permanently you are ok with this? What if you are on reserve and have to work more to get paid more yet see your family and your own bed less. Was this worth the extra money to permanently give away more work rules?

 

Are you referring to major carrier pilots like USAir, AAL, UAL/CAL, AirTran?

1. I need to see the ENTIRE contract to make a determination
2. Again, I need to see the ENTIRE contract to make a determination.
3. No, not at all but when I look at the overall picture regarding this TA, not just section 3, it's completely obvious that a YES vote is warranted. Am I completely satisfied, absolutely not. However, I see no benefit in going back to the table over a failed principle. If I look at each section individually, not understanding the full picture my vote is (and really used to be) NO.

 

Jack,

I'm not a good historian as far as your statement above. Could you provide me with the names of these other pilot groups? Thanks.

Denny

 

Try 7%. Thats how much we are STILL losing out on to this day. However, we still have our principle. That'll learn 'em.

 

Hawaiian, ASA, Skywest. I believe Alaska and Southwest as well as one of the large cargo carriers (UPS/Fedex) did as well. Don't get me wrong....I know this is the new standard trick management plays (send a second offer that is worse) to get guys to say yes please on the first but it is a horrible reason to start lapping up whatever is offered. Just plain sad and shows no self respect for the pilot who votes yes on these scraps (which likely lower QOL) or the industry they work in.

From another thread....

"You are correct. It was HAL's TA that was developed by their MEC in bankruptcy court. Their MEC urged a YES vote. The membership voted it down and told the MEC to back to the judge and do better. In bankruptcy court no less! There's some cajones right there. Anyway, the judge and MEC quickly added a number of very good improvements from pay to many other areas, and put TA #2 out for membership vote. The members overwhelming voted YES. It was quite a proud moment."

 

For question #1 and 2 assume the current contract proposal (including work rules that have pilots flying more and reduce required staffing).

Care to answer #4 as well?

 

I can't assume the current contract proposal because neither of those are options on the table and i hope you dont view that as what the TA is proposing becuase that would mean we have severely deranged pilots flying our aircraft.
Furthermore, the TA does not have pilots flying more or reduce staffing levels. Who will fly the 88 717's if we REDUCE staffing levels? The new duty Rigs increase 75% of the current rotation by 15% with no increase in flying. If you're on Reserve you will get a 20% raise for no extra days of availablility unless YOU specifically bid for that. However you are compensated with a 30% pay raise to do so. The ALV was raised to compensate for the increase in rotation guarantee as well as the increase in Reserve pay.
Do you think you should be able to sit at home and collect paycheck for doing nothing. There's a name for that, its called Welfare. Don't you enjoy your job of DAL aircraft all over the globe, because I do. Am I completely happy with the pay rates,...No. But i don't want them to give us those rates prematurely again only to have them snatch them back two years later. I want DAL to have sustained profitability. That's good for everyone!