CVG767A

I liked the DTW letter a lot, but the CVG letter was written by a guy who was the LEC chairman ten years ago. He's a good guy, but his decision is based upon less information than a sitting MEC member.

Regarding the above letter, is there anyone LA-based on here that can give us his opinion of the author?

CVG767A

I'm heading to the CVG road show today. Any suggested questions?

Check Essential

A lot of our concerns could be addressed without going back to management and asking to re-open this agreement.
We just need some "clarifications". They should be willing to provide that.
They did it on C2K. Some wording was changed as late as a few days before the ratification voting.

For instance:
1) AirTran pilots coming with the 717s?
2) Frontier or any other RAH affiliates flying SkyTeam pax?
3) Clarification on how many early-outs. The way its worded now, they only have to offer a handful and then they can say "sorry, operational reliability issues".
4) Clearer timelines and some enforcement mechanism for the DCI ratios.
5) Same for the JV production balances. The language is way too loose.

There are several others too.
I think management should be willing to fine tune some of the language for us without affecting costing. This thing was rushed through. Its understandable that it might require some polishing.

Check Essential

Yea. Ask 'em how they know AirTran pilots aren't coming with the 717s.

CVG767A

Already have that one on my list. Thanks

FIIGMO

Elvis,

My concerns were and are scope. Pay? of course like the rest of us I want more money.

Scope:

Republic carve out. That was listed in the the first TA/Contract change document. It was worrisome to me because of the certificate issue and oversight. Also, for the fact that what if Republic wanted to join skyteam and fly say Airbuses or C series jets.

First, Republic carve out was done to honor contracts between DAL and chitaqua and shuttle america for DCI flying that is covered under the RJ scope language that has been reduced. Yes, we are indirectly creating revenue for Republic by virtue of the holding company having these DCI carriers in it. But, the DCI carriers are covered under these scope changes and there is specific language that will not allow this to happen again with respect to operating certificates. Alaska code share has been reduced. The LAX SEA market (that has killed my QOL) code with Alaska is a hold over from the NWA agreement with Alaska. Alaska promised to feed NWA and hub definitions were not part of the contract. Dont like it but it is not going to change with out courts and payoff penalties. DAL does not want to go down that road. 50% to 30%? I have no idea if DAL had any skin in that or was part of some give and take.

The DCI scope and 50 seat reduction was and is a cost benefit transaction. DCI carries and DAL can get relief on leases for 50's (DAL parks them) if Bombardier can sign them to new leases on 76 seats and DAL can rewrite contracts with DCI carriers (no more 20 year agreements, this gives DAL modern day contracts language with DCI carriers) We give up more airframes for stronger scope language a hard cap on numbers, plain block hour language, but a significant reduction in total seats and DCI pilots. Not what I wanted but is it better? yes IMO. DAL can then get a 100 seat aircraft from Boeing (absolutely no airtran pilots) for markets than can support these jets. More mainline jobs for 88 aircraft, no 737-900er etops a/c were part of any deal with Boeing so they will be delivered as well. I dont like the fact that 757's will be parked for 737 pay rate replacements.

We wanted tighter scope we got it. It was a trade off and I feel we got the better part of it. I dont buy into the 717 as a benefit to us. If DAL wants the jet they will get it. But I honestly feel there were some complex financial transactions for this overall business plan and this is what we were able to do with a seat at the table. I personally never viewed RJ scope as a plane. It was about mainline jobs and seats being flown. 76 seats or 50 seats those total number of seats were reduced and pilot jobs at regionals under DAL code reduced. If they were all back at mainline id be happy. That with tighter scope language is a positive.

Reserve:

ALV +15 is bad. I am sure it will be rare for it to happen to anyone but if it can and it will it will happen to me. I dont like it. Other side is increased pay, days off, seniority based etc. Are good, lots to improve upon though. I am sure it was a give and take as well and I dont like all the gives.

I wanted 30% for pay. Did not get that. If this TA does produce movement it will be much higher than 20% for me and improved QOL. A risk I am willing to take right now with 20% v. waiting to see if we can do better. I do believe what the LAX letter says, there is a plan B on the part of the company if this TA is voted down. We have no idea what that is. If the company wants our help with another business transaction on July 2, 2012 it will cost them and will be added to the 20% I did not have on July 1,2012.

That is my take today, voting is not set yet. I am always willing to listen and I may just change my mind, but it has to be based on fact and not a burn it down we will show em platform, who wins in that?

Fiig

FIIGMO

Check,

My exact concerns.

Republic carve out was for Chitaqua and Shuttle America. They were existing contracts as DCI carriers. They had to be carved out to honor those contracts. Those Republic DCI's fall under the scope Language. Republic certificate issue language has been fixed and cannot (we hope) be undone.

That was from the SLC reps yesterday.

FIIGMO

717 deal was with Boeing only. It was with a leasing company and not with SWA. Therefore, Airtran has no right to any jobs at DAL. Again, SLC reps.

Elvis90

FIIGMO & Bill, thanks for your comments, they were helpful.

Elvis90

I'm curious about their take on the 50-seaters future if this is voted down.

Also, what will happen to the 717 deal in their opinion if this is voted down?

Would they expect a 30-month negotiation if this was a close NO vote, given 6 months left until the amenable date?

Why ALV+15? Can we eliminate that? I would rather have a choice in lieu of a mandate. Is that possible to tweak if it passes?

What about staffing numbers? What will be the end state?

Thanks CVG.