acl65pilot

Yes, its a standard term, but I wonder if the definition is different in each CBA. Go look at our section 2 definition. Its been there for some time, and for a MDH ratio is in my opinion a little to broad to use for non-compliance.

I would have preferred it to read: "Does not include "domestic or International" economy, Capacity Purchase Agreement omissions, fleet renewal issues, AD's that may cause the company to become non-complaint if over 90 days, the inability of the entity to properly staff and maintain the mainline domestic and or international block hr plan to remain in compliance with these ratios" and then the rest of the definition.

I will agree or submit that this language WILL NOT effect us in the next three years. We will be in a ramp up period as we go through the trigger hurdles to the final ratios and DCI and MBH ratios. Going beyond 2015 when there are larger brighter more important issues, we will, more than likely, not tighten this definition and focus on the 100 seat jets issue as the 70 seat aircraft needs a solution, retirements become problematic for operational integrity, and so on. At a point beyond this, the non compliance language is key.

*boilerplate language can and has gotten companies and pilot groups in trouble. It is not limited to this industry either.

bluejuice71

I love how you guys just blow this letter off as scare tactics or a sales job. You refuse to accept that they had advice from professional negotiators, attorneys, and even the NMB. Yet, somehow you know better than they do. You're convinced that Delta wants this so badly they are just going to open up there coffers and throw some more money at us. This is simply business to them. I tend to believe all the guys on the inside of these negotiations that this was all that we were going to get. It would be a mistake to turn this down. Steve Dickson said today that the 717's are an all or nothing deal based on this TA (I know, another scare tactic). That is a lot of jobs and movement for our pilots that you are risking if we turn the TA down in hope for a few small gains that probably aren't even possible. Mainline domestic flying will go from 52% to over 60% with this TA. You can't argue that. While I'm not happy about more 76 seaters, it's worth the trade off in my opinion. As others have said, I don't see a legitimate option of turning this deal down and getting more money from the company.