LAX LEC brief on TA---great read
 

Forwarded to me by a buddy in LA:


Memorial Day Perspective

Monday, May 28, 2012

There are a number of very relevant factors that brought us to C2012. We will cover them in this document. If you still have questions after you have finished reviewing the document, please call one of us and we’ll try to clarify the provisions.

Delta’s management team approached the Delta MEC early in 2012 with several concepts for the upcoming negotiations. These concepts were discussed as an alternative way to achieve a mutually beneficial negotiating scenario in a timely manner consistent with Delta’s future business plans. Embedded within their wish list was the concern that nearly every management team has regarding ways to improve pilot productivity. As time progressed, the MEC unanimously agreed to move forward to investigate the details. Along with these proposals, we were interested in maintaining a framework that would achieve our negotiating goals and do so in an expeditious manner.

The history of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) has not been labor friendly over the last decade. As economic losses mounted, the National Mediation Board (NMB) became less interested in providing a release for labor to strike and more inclined to perpetuate drawn out negotiating sessions with the underlying goal of protecting commerce. Indeed, many of our brothers at other organized properties have spent many years in Section 6 surrounded by an ever mounting level of frustration. Our collective opinion of the role of the NMB and its employment of the RLA was solidified with a several hour presentation by the current NMB Chairperson, Ms. Linda Puchala. In summary, she stated that a strike scenario for the Delta pilots was highly unlikely since the remainder of the aviation industry would be unable to absorb the lost capacity in the national/international airline system. Furthermore, it was more probable should an impasse develop that we could end up in a Presidential Emergency Board (PEB) where the terms of our agreement would be dictated to us or eventually a PWA crafted by Congress. She left us with a word to the wise in that the more outside groups that become involved in our negotiations, the less control we will have over the final result. In summary, we would be better served by trying to resolve our own problems by ourselves.

We subsequently proceeded with our dual path strategy that allowed for an expedited process backed up by the traditional Section 6 timeline. We crafted our opening position based on the pilot survey, pilot input, polling, and finally MEC input. The opener was approved unanimously by the MEC, and we began negotiating approximately five weeks before the start date designated in the current PWA. For those that are curious, we never expose the details of the survey publically because we do not want the company team to have that information. Why hand over the playbook after the game?

It was clear from the start that the Company team was established to reach a rapid conclusion. It is rare to ever have an executive vice-president from management at the sessions unless it is the end of the process. However, this time, decision makers were at the negotiating table from the beginning. Word from the table was that progress was being made even during the early stages. As an MEC meeting date approached in mid-April, a flurry of decisions were made by the company to close out (in our favor) a number of outstanding items. This helped us to recognize that management was serious about moving the agreement to closure. Our negotiating team wrote a Negotiators’ Notepad with a short summary of items that had been successfully concluded.

Many of us believed that the negotiations would be concluded just prior to the regular MEC meeting scheduled for early May 2012. This is exactly what happened. The MEC was handed complete contract language showing “track changes” on Tuesday morning. The proposed PWA was the size of a phone book. The expanded negotiating team spent the next four days painstakingly briefing each and every section so that we would have a comprehensive understanding of what had been achieved. We also had a discussion of what was not achieved from our opener as well as an overview of what was rejected from the company’s opener.

There are a number of general concepts that need to be covered at this point. We have already discussed the role of the RLA and NMB in our negotiations. As we have seen in the past, an airline that is profitable but has an open contract with an employee group will typically “drag their feet” since an up contract will only raise their costs. We knew that our company team could realistically delay the conclusion to our negotiations for years. Since the strike card would be unlikely, there would be little to no progress unless the company wanted it to occur. It has been mentioned in the recent “Chairman’s Letter” that once negotiations enter mediation, reaching an agreement averages 29 months. Let there be no doubt, the resolve of the pilot group is certainly a concern with a number of green bag tags in view, albeit hard to believe.

An additional union strategy is to pattern bargain off of other similar union contracts in order to improve your contract during up economic times. This is a well-known process and was mentioned in the briefing by the NMB . Regrettably, the Delta pilots find themselves with only one passenger airline contract to use as a reference document for pattern bargaining. The Southwest contract has a superior pay position compared to the final DAL 738 pay scale from the 2008 JCBA. However, their airline model is different enough in areas such as work rules, operations, routes, etc. to make a direct business comparison in most areas. A typical management response to the SWA pay rates is usually met with a reply about their higher monthly productivity and our DC plan. A comparison to cargo airline contracts is also met with minimal interest since the parent corporation is competing in a duopoly (UPS-FDX). Their pilots may perform the same job, but the similarity to the rest of the business ends there. There was also some interest following the announced UAL/CAL (UCAL) merger that perhaps they would successfully pattern bargain off our JCBA rates and make our negotiations more successful. That was not to be, and they have now sought a release by the NMB due to a lack of progress. That lack of success at that property should not be lost on the Delta pilots. Without a strong motivation from management, a negotiation can drag on for years and has done just that at UCAL.

The business model proposal by our management team remains confidential. At some point they may release more of their concepts. It is not the intent here to divulge any confidential information, so for now we will just refer to this as their “business plan.” Whenever one side has a significant need at negotiations, there is leverage for the other party. Delta’s business plan did provide us with leverage for these negotiations. The exact nature of the leverage may never really be known. What we do know is that this leverage was real - but perishable. Given enough delay, the leverage would evaporate and the opportunity would be lost. You may wish to read those two sentences again as they did play an important role in our final decision.

What we do know is that this leverage was real - but perishable. Given enough delay, the leverage would evaporate and the opportunity would be lost.

Similarly, the business plan could only hold up so much gain in the PWA before it would also force the executive team down another path for the company, and make no mistake; they do have a Plan B, and it does not involve negotiating with us. This is a judgment call and you must rely on the expertise of those directly involved to guide you. For us, we relied on the experienced negotiating team, our attorneys with many decades of negotiating experience (on this property and others), and our MEC administration and their many years dealing with our management team. Much like an individual seeking professional advice from a physician, attorney, or accountant, you selected these people with full confidence in their abilities based on their record. While the agreement did not achieve all of our goals, a seasoned pilot will remember that it never does. For the Delta MEC, it was the majority belief that our team had achieved all that was possible during these negotiations. The company team had been pushed as far as they would go. There were several discussions with management that were recounted to us that provided ample proof that this was indeed the case.

The week-long regular meeting that included deliberations on the TA was comprehensive. Every member had ample time to discuss, question, and debate the points of the document. There was no pressure to conform to the group, no threats, and all the time necessary to reach a decision. We had to discuss any possible TA rejection against a very real concept of “what’s the next step.” For us, that concept provided the end point for any thought of rejection of this TA. While it is very true that the MEC was more than prepared to travel the longer road of a traditional Section 6 negotiation, it was not at all clear that this path would improve the results. In fact, there are several recent histories in the industry that a rejected preliminary TA would result is a lesser value agreement the second time around. For the Delta property, it is little known that a preliminary JCBA deal was available that contained a larger pay raise (7%) and an improvement in the DC contribution for some pilots. This deal was not accepted at that time and the follow on JCBA that was eventually accepted was lower in value as a result. It is important to understand when to “close the deal.”* For the record, it is our view that this is the most poignant example of what path CEO Richard Anderson might pursue should the MEC (or pilot group for that matter) reject the agreement. There are two other examples in recent memory that involve SWA and, separately, AirTran. The follow-on agreement at SWA following a TA rejection did not result in more value, and arguably resulted in a deal of lesser value. Most recently the AirTran pilots rejected the first seniority integration proposal. The end result there . . . well you know the story. Our professional counsel cited numerous times where a rejected TA resulted in a follow-on agreement of lesser value. The risks are real and history has enough cases to back this fact up.

Recent discussions with fellow pilots put an interesting perspective on this rejection scenario. For those that choose to ignore guidance from counsel and our team of professionals, it is easy for them to label this advice as a ”scare tactic.” We would prefer to view it as a “reality check.” Until the ink is dry on the paper from both sides, this deal is not official and not an obligation. Every gain contained within the document can be gone tomorrow in a worst case scenario, or at least modified to be less valuable to the pilot group.

Consider another reality of the business world in that a management team is constantly in negotiations with various corporations throughout the world. Everything from joint ventures to the peanuts on our aircraft has some legal contract that defines the terms. Our TA is a public news story and a rejection by the pilot group would be viewed as a failure of both parties. It is a financial risk for our management team to respond to that rejection with a sweetening of the contract by any significant amount. Actions like that would quickly diminish their credibility on their final offer in any future deal.

Should the TA be rejected, what would be the reason to resolve it in the pilot’s favor? That concept was carefully considered by the MEC. Our management team is a business oriented team. Our services, as defined in our contract, have costs that must be justified to the Board of Directors as well as the shareholders of Delta stock. In our current negotiations, our management team can justify an increase in order to facilitate their business plan (as mentioned above). Settling the PWA for more than the hundreds of millions already on the table, while it sounds nice to the pilot group, is a business issue for management. So what exactly would have to occur to change their final offer and equally important, when would that occur?* The answers are available when considered from a historical perspective. Certainly the NWA merger is one example where Delta pilots were able to extract value for the PWA by providing value to the merged company. Other examples are possible and scenario dependent, however, the second question of when this would occur is equally important. The answer to that is we do not clearly know when, if ever, the company will need our cooperation for another business deal.

At the end of the discussions, the MEC voted 14-5 to approve this TA and send it out for membership ratification. What was missing in the discussion for me was a clear answer on how to proceed if we voted no. When Ed asked that question casually of those who voted against the agreement, he was usually met with a “just send it back” reply. That is not a plan or a strategy when hundreds of millions are at risk, all benefiting Delta pilots and our families.

A corollary to that scenario also entered into the discussions. If there is a future deal, would it not be better to have the current improvements in the PWA so that any deal can leap frog this agreement? Much like the proverbial bird in the hand analogy, a defined improvement via this TA is far better than a prospect or hope that some opportunity may present itself at some unknown time in the future. As labor leaders with access to many independent as well as internal ALPA professionals for advice, it was far preferable to achieve significant improvements now than hold out for the uncertain prospect for the increasingly elusive home run.

Another concept that is important to recount is a discussion of value. Achieving improvements today, vice a long and protracted negotiation, has the effect of providing timely improvements in life that cannot be accurately measured. How can you measure immediate financial improvements to a struggling family? It is also difficult to quantify the new job protections found in scope. For example, the cost of furlough protection is zero - unless there is a pending furlough on the horizon. Restored disability plan language (C2K) has no value - unless you find yourself unable to hold a First Class medical certificate. In short, it is easy to dismiss these improvements because they may not be relevant to you immediately. These items are not guaranteed to resurface in any future negotiation. The history of airline union leadership has viciously provided example after example of not being able to take advantage of fleeting opportunities, and in the end, not putting this value into the pockets of their membership they represent.

It is also important to recognize that management did not get everything they wanted. The bulk of their individual items were in the area of productivity. Like any negotiation, they had their wish list and it would carry equal validity with a mediator. While pilots may focus on what we did not achieve, or where we accepted compromise, there were a number of overreaching items that had to be fought off repeatedly. An example of this is the accounting for minutes under block time. This keeps popping up from our management team periodically, and it is completely unacceptable to the pilot group. It is not always as simple as stomping your foot to reject these issues. However, our team pushed it back and the expedited time line allowed little room for posturing. Another important item that was rejected was management’s desire to add seats to the current restriction of 76 seats on regional aircraft. This item was not removed from the table until the very last day. While our pilot group would not accept this provision, nearly all other legacy airlines have allowed more than 76 seats in some form. This was a limiting factor in achieving all of our goals. It is easy to realize that additional seats on already permitted airframes would increase revenue and allow for additional pilot pay. However, we recognized that the idea of more seats per aircraft is a line in the sand item for many Delta pilots, and we held that line. There are a number of additional examples that can be cited.

To support the terms of the TA, we had several informational presentations on the state of the industry, the progress of pilot contracts at other properties, and possible future developments. These were not new subjects as we hear about these topics at nearly every meeting. We have been monitoring the individual carriers and industry news on a routine basis. Regrettably, the pilot profession outside of a very few airlines is completely stagnant or in disarray. Our brothers at AMR are suffering the same destruction to their contract that we lived in bankruptcy. Their only white knight might come in the form of US Airways, the company we soundly rejected during their hostile takeover attempt of Delta. Speaking of Airways and their independent union, they remain crippled and irrelevant, unable to solve their internal pilot problems, and they continue to work for the lowest wages of any major airline. Without a forced solution, they will continue to lose ground every year. A discussion of the problems at UAL/CAL (UCAL) was briefed. While the pilot groups struggle to reach a deal, the clock continues to tick for them and they are still operating under their previous contracts. It should be noted that with a successful vote on our TA, we will have completed our second post-bankruptcy agreement while they wait for their first. The purpose of this paragraph has been to point out that no other airline has made any meaningful improvements to their contract since the middle of last decade. While we all believe we should have restoration of C2K, there is no precedent for that industry wide. As was stated in Chairman O’Malley’s letter to all pilots, some pilot groups have stagnated with no increases for years waiting for the elusive home-run payout. We would add to that by saying all pilot groups who have swung only for that home run have consistently struck out. They now sit many percentage points behind us with even more ground to make up.

In summary, it should be noted that a thorough review and debate occurred. There was no pressure from one side or the other to accept/reject this TA. Our vote was based on the following factors:

Ø* Did we achieve the majority of the pilot goals? In our view, the answer is yes. Double digit pay raises, while we acknowledge it was short of the aspirational survey’s first day demand, are significant in terms of dollars today verses a promise tomorrow. All other sections were improved including some great work in scope. Also, the potential for hundreds of long stagnated first officers to upgrade to captain on a new fleet of narrow body jets, and the opportunity for several hundred senior pilots to retire early with an account to pay for medical expenses should provide some movement for us. There are comprehensive improvements to nearly every section of our PWA.

Ø* Was there more available at the negotiating table? Our team is experienced and includes veteran pilot negotiators, outside attorneys, financial consultants, an ALPA attorney with decades of negotiating experience, and Chairman O’Malley with his many years of direct contact with this management team. To answer the question, they all stated that this is as far as this management team will go before they turn away from this business plan and our proposed gains in this contract. Do you believe the expert’s advice or do you proceed with your own assumptions? We chose to believe those with direct contact with management and a mountain more experience in negotiations than we have.

Ø* If the MEC (or pilot group) rejects this TA, what is the likelihood for future improvements? Historical precedent does not indicate favorable results. The current management team is acknowledged to have done good work for Delta. It is unlikely they will sweeten the agreement without a corresponding and equal value sweetening by us, and make no mistake, there are sections of this agreement they would love to reopen. Merely asking for more is a “fool’s errand” at best.

Ø* When will any future TA occur should we reject this one? Frankly, there is no reason short of a business need for this management team to conclude a pilot agreement quickly. With nothing on the horizon, this could go on for a long time. We already discussed the lack of support from the NMB to rapidly conclude our process so the time line is potentially extended into the distant future. Items that are currently in this TA cannot be assumed to automatically roll into the next negotiation. In fact, it is understood by both sides that we will start from scratch in many if not all areas.

Ø* Will the Delta pilots accept this TA? We reviewed the information for a week. In that time, most of us went through the same process. We are required to review the entire agreement before rendering a decision. During that week, we were able to recognize the time value of money, the significant improvements in many sections of the PWA, and the reality that we would be the best overall compensated pilots during the term of this agreement. Add to that the relatively short duration, the prospect of any future company need building on these terms, and it became a TA we elected to support. It is hard to argue with the extensive list of improvements and the fact that they are coming as soon as we sign the document, a half a year before our amendable date.

*

In closing, it is imperative that you do the following before casting your vote. First, learn as much as you can about the entire agreement. Changes, large and small, are throughout the document and provide value that you should investigate. Read the numerous Negotiators’ Notepads you will continue to receive.* If you have questions, ask us or call the Delta Pilot network at 1#%%#%#######%% . Recognize that there are those who would like to see ALPA fail (along with this contract) and there is much misinformation already out there. Do not trust your future agreement to a potential misunderstanding. Read everything, attend a road show, or view a webcast (coming soon).

Similarly, your vote should be for you and your family. Vote responsibly and as if this agreement will pass or fail based on your vote and only your vote.

Fraternally,

This sales letter is one example of why ALPA is loathed by so many.

What's the rush to complete a TA now, 7 months before the amenable date? We've heard of the 'time value of money', what about the time value of leverage? The company NEEDS this agreement to move forward in the industry, otherwise they stagnate. I read an article recently stating that Delta's new pilot agreement is poising the company for an upgrade...RA's strategy is to make DAL stock 'investment grade'. He needs this agreement to do that.

This will not take 30 months to resolve. It took 3 months from early openers to today. If both sides address pilot concerns after being voted down the first time, assuring passage the second time, then we're all happy. RA is simply "pressing to test". I admire him for it. I hope the pilot group uses their own independent thinking as well.

shhhhhhh...you're going to ruin Lumbergs fallacy of a "perishable" contract. This missive sounds like a re-cap of the Brady Bunch episode in which Greg buys a car from Eddie when Eddie tells him he better act now or the guy coming in 15 minutes is sure to buy it. Then Mr. Brady introduces "Caveat Emptor" to the American lexicon.

Not so sure about that Jack. I enjoy the banter and points of view here on APC. I think it is healthy and good for debate especially when it comes to important issues in ones personal life as far as work is concerned. Being informed and making sound decisions based on fact and listening to productive debate is necessary to making the right decision. I was in SLC yesterday (ALPA Reps were there to answer questions) watching and listening to the questions from FO's Capt's and even a few guys sporting DPA lanyards. It was respectful and informative. The Reps presented fact and contractual language. They answered everyone of my questions about scope and reserve concisely. (My fears about Republic were unwarranted and clearly spelled out in the section 1, hard to find but it is there, reserve + ALV was a compromise, still not what I want)

There was emotionally charged engagement with the reps in a few instances that was sporty for a few moments. But that was emotion, and regardless of ones point of view it is natural and it is real. The reps and the pilots then got down to constructive engagement and the mis conceptions (of which i had many) and half truths were cleared up. A Straw poll from the 10 or so pilots (with differing opinions) hanging around in the crew lounge after there were no more questions? I only heard one guy say he would vote no, and he was asked by others standing around "what then"? He like me did not have an answer. That simple fact, that we don't know what will happen if we vote this TA down is very true. It is not an ALPA or a DPA issue, it is simply fact that we don't know. So each has to decide.

I will be voting YES. (and I will state that publicly at any time and any place)

My buddy in LA says these guys are trustworthy, and he has known the Capt rep for many years. But, you guys think this is a sell job. What if it isn't? That summary is pretty extensive. Maybe you guys should attend a road show and ask some big questions instead of discounting it because you are still upset.

Now read the DtW and CVG letters. How do they compare?

Please post them. I would like to read them.

I am sure like this whole debate they have good information. It is what we need to make a good decision.

What if it isn't? The negotiators have said that there is no more $$$$. Then they say the company (DAL, not US, AMR, UAL) is and will continue to make billions in profits now and going forward (oil is collapsing, DAL stock at a 52 week high and upgraded). Don't you now see why they may be in a rush to push this through. Remember when dalpa said "we will not sacrifice the quality for expediency?".

Question.

On the RJET Holding Company cutout; what did they correct? How was it worded? What was your perception prior to talking to your reps?

I was told DAL would not want RJET though Frontier to fly for Skyteam, not that they couldn't given the language. Further, when pressed to test, they stated that they did not "think" that it would happen. I asked to see the language that precluded them from doing just that, and we could not find it.

Would and could are two different things.

Also Brian Bedford, RJET's CEO wants to join an alliance; Skyteam or Star are his top choices. He is fighting to stay alive. I would like all of the provisions to become null and void in the PWA(TA) when they file CH7, but until then I want to make 100% certain that there is not a work around for him, or a way for him to make it happen.

If you were given the argument that they could not do this on AF, KLM, or AZ because all of their TransAtlantic flights carry our code, this is factually correct within bundle 1, but there are many more carriers than just these three that fly to the US that may or may not carry our code on a given flight.

Just food for thought.

Maybe fewer Brady Bunch episodes should be in your future and instead you should be writing down questions you should ask at a road show? Your anger over this TA is clouding your judgement. Get as much information you can about this TA before you dismiss it.

FIIGMO, could you please share with the group the misconceptions you had that were cleared up? Being completely honest here.

Also, what were your threshold points in the survey? Did you change, and if so, why?

Bill, I have not attended a road show yet...I'll try, but I am a commuter.

I had asked you in a previous thread regarding your survey input. What did you put in the survey, and have you changed your mind? If so, why?

Maybe, maybe not. The reps were briefed extensively by the negotiators and if this was the case, and they made a completely compelling argument, then the vote should have been unanimous in favor of the TA. As it stands five reps question the data, and some have written as to why. That point leaves a lot to question.

Yes, there is risk with saying no. There is also risk with saying yes. There are work rule concessions in this agreement, the effect of those is not fully known. There are scope changes, with language that has not been tested in the real world.

One needs to look at what just happened. It is unheard of. Two months of talks and a comprehensive TA. The decision makers for the company were present almost nonstop. That means other things were put on hold to get to this deal. That right there should tell you how bad DAL wants this deal done.

The RJ DCI changes allow DAL to do many things, namely get out of money losing contracts and reduce their overall debt level. My research seems to point to a level that would allow significantly increased borrowing numbers after this deal is done. With the time to a TA, the effort involved to get here and an apparent timeline that is in line with AMR's loss of exclusivity(Sept 29th), many things pointed to a TA being voted on and ratified by Late Aug. We are looking at this deal possibly being done by June 30th, two months ahead of the assumed deadline.

Now none of this is fore certain, but recall what you heard and what you have seen from everyone involved prior to the TA. I would be surprised to the the "go" time altering slightly. If this TA passes it just gives DAL more time before they start acting.

DAL brought in Mr Chase to gain significant access to the Capital markets six months ago. DAL has bought a refinery, we invested in AeroMexico, GOL, and many one off purchases are probably in the works. That all adds up to a half a billion dollars. DAL just committed 2 bln to modernization of international airport checkin counters, Sky Clubs, and gate houses. 2bln! They just committed to ordering 188 replacement/growth airplanes as well. DAL has the cash flow. Keep that in mind. What they need access to is 2-5 bln to make a major asset purchase. This TA sets them up for a very interesting Fall and Winter. The business plan needs a debt level to go the preferred route.

It is a big question on if they would rework the deal that would add 140-200 million by Jan 1 or not. I look at what I see possibly coming down the road, and the revenue growth potential from it, and I ask myself; If I were CEO, would I risk the preferred route for the cost of one 777? Its a question I ask daily, and will until the vote closes. I know what I would do, but I am not the CEO.

I too grew up in a family that had a father that was a big time exec over 40K employees. Labor contracts et al were just part of dinner table discussion. Strategy and the cost benefit of fighting the deals were also discussed. There is a line that makes the risk worth more than the reward with any one of these situations. We all agree with that. There are also intangibles in this industry that cannot be measured. a few hundred million is minimal in the overall scheme of things with you have a 36 bln dollar company that could possibly be a 40+ billion dollar company with the correct acquisitions.

All I ask, from a "yes," "no" or a maybe voter is to think strategically and for yourself. Read and listen to what is put out there from the union and others. Dismiss what you see as non-meaningful, then take a step back, look at what RA has said and all of the LCA meetings, investor calls et al, look at what the analysis are saying, and what is going on in the industry before making a decision.


*Of note the Bankruptcy judge will hear AMR's case on throwing out the APA's contract before the close of voting. If it is in fact thrown out, the timeline changes significantly and DAL will move immediately as it will become a free for all. If the judge refuses to throw out the contract prior to the close of TA voting, the timeline remains unchanged for DAL, UCAL et al. Watch these events and change your vote if needed.

"How can you measure immediate financial improvements to a struggling family?"

Are the hundreds of RJ families (or pilots that can't afford to start a family yet) built into these measurements? Both furloughs at 50 seat carriers, and more low paying jobs flying 76 seaters.

Good comments ACL, all from a strategic perspective.

Is it only a sales job from DALPA if it disagrees with your agenda/thoughts? Look at recent history, the industry as a whole, and any possible future plans you can conjure. Then think what you would do if you were CEO - how would you negotiate, what would you give up/take back. We never operate in a bubble.

Hey, good or bad, its the way I think. Always looking for the anomaly in the data. I see a few that may be used as leverage points. Time will tell. The chess board is constantly changing and so are the targets.

Very true and it comes down to risk/reward for the company too. They may need the delta pilots help once again in the near future. The players are shrinking and the need for labor support will be paramount.

I put in 15% min first year, and then 4/4/4. That would be for a 4 year contract obviously. I was close the first year, since the Md88 guys get an extra pay bump to MD90 wages for all flights, plus the 4 and 8.5 by Jan 1st. The next two aren't great, but again it is a 3 year contract, which isn't bad at all. I then looked at the whole TA, and saw improvements in most areas. The larger RJ additions aren't great, but maybe those 50 seaters are draining the bank, and those 102 70 seaters maybe could replace a lot of them, and make those routes more profitable. Adding 717s and making them connected to any additional 76 seaters helped too. And seeing what is happening in the rest of our industry with our friends at AA/UA/US and how that doesn't help our situation pretty much points toward accepting the deal and moving on with more pay, improved work rules and scope with ratios. It's not the best TA, but it is a good deal for us right now. We might do better on the next one if we finally get help from the rest of the pack.

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?

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

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.

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

Already have that one on my list. Thanks

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

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.

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.

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

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.

To:***************** Council 20 Pilots

From:************* CA Tom Tucker, Council 20 Chairman

Subject:********** Chairman’s Letter

Date:************** May 25, 2012

*

I wish that I could report to you that the MEC has reached a tentative agreement with the Company that met or exceeded the direction of our members as determined through the Contact Survey, but I cannot.

*

I wish that I could report to you that I found the tentative agreement had extracted value, monetary and intrinsic, proportional to the opportunity and financial growth made available to the Company through this tentative agreement, but I cannot.

*

I wish I could have voted in the affirmative to approve this tentative agreement, but I could not.

*

I request that you evaluate the tentative agreement as a total package, review the information provided by the MEC, attend a road show, speak to your fellow pilots/DPN (Delta Pilot Network) volunteers at (800) USA-ALPA/Council 20 representatives, and then make an informed decision based upon your priorities and the best interests of our profession.

*

Please remember that I represent the interests of DTW captains, all Council 20 pilots, and all Delta pilots in that order of priority. Without question, Scott Smetana will represent our first officers in an exemplary manner. I appreciate Scott and Drew’s guidance, advice, and support during the last few months.

*

As I promised you, I will provide you the basis for my decision. It is my goal and that of the MEC to provide you the same information that the MEC considered to formulate our decision. Any company confidential information I posses did not figure in my decision. I have written to you numerous times that there are “opportunities” for a company that has a stable work force with known costs, proven revenue stream, and an innovative management team. The following review notes significant changes to specific sections of the PWA (Facts), a review of each based upon the priorities set by the MEC in response to your input (Discussion), my view on each (Opinion), and a rating of each section on a 1-5 scale with 1-unacceptable, 3-acceptable, and 5-a big win for DAL pilots (Grade). Do your best to make an informed and unemotional decision.* Please exercise your right to vote on this TA.

*

Scope

*

Facts

DCI aircraft

Current

Tentative Agreement

50 seat RJ

343 unlimited and not covered in PWA Section I

125

70 seat RJ

102

102

76 seat RJ

153

223

70 + 76 seat RJs

255

325

All RJs

255 70/76 + unlimited 50 seat

Current-608 total RJs

450 maximum

*

70 seat increased to 76 seat

Above 767 mainline aircraft at a 3 to 1 rate. Current-723 mainline aircraft

No increase allowed above 450 maximum RJs

*

·****** Hard cap on DCI aircraft

·****** Other than a few remaining turbo prop aircraft and nine 44-seat RJ, the TA reduces available DCI seats by 15.6%

·****** Ratio of block hour flying between domestic mainline aircraft and DCI flying

·****** If new SNB (small narrow body) aircraft are brought on line there will be a ratio for parking 50 seat aircraft and increasing 76 seat aircraft

·****** Furlough protections-all Delta pilots will be covered on date of signing, 90 day prior notification, and ALV reduction during furlough periods

·****** Joint venture protections

·****** Holding company protection

·****** Foreign ownership protection

·****** Proposed increase in captain positions with purchase of SNB aircraft

Discussion

This contract negotiation began with a supposal from Richard Anderson at our January 2012 MEC meeting. The result of that supposal is found in the Section I changes to DCI flying. The TA has an overall reduction in DCI aircraft and a 15.6% reduction in seats. The TA would provide a minimum block hour ratio between mainline and DCI. There is also a maximum limit to DCI aircraft.* There would be improvements in Joint Venture protection, Holding companies, and foreign ownership. There would be a seventy plane increase in 76 seat aircraft and proposed new captain positions on SNB purchased aircraft.

*

Opinion

It is difficult to quantify scope. How do you put a dollar amount on enhanced furlough protection or an increase in SNB flying? Thus, for most scope changes there is an intrinsic value associated with scope. As many DTW pilots have commented, “the 50 seat aircraft are going away anyway don’t give up something in scope for these planes”. This statement is partially true in that a large portion of these aircraft could be parked by Delta because of fuel costs and upcoming engine overhaul costs. On the other hand, many of these capacity purchase agreements, (contract for service agreements) with DCI carriers are in effect for years to come. This TA allows Delta to remove 50 seat aircraft from service at a faster rate than they could under the current PWA. This is a significant savings for Delta through increased revenue on the 76 seat aircraft vice the smaller 50 seat aircraft and even greater savings in removing older 50 seat aircraft from the fleet before major and extremely expensive engine overhauls are required. We were presented ALPA and Company projections on these savings. I contend that a percentage of these one-time costs should be considered and amortized over a period of time as a credit to Delta pilots. Even if a small percentage of this maintenance savings was categorized as a credit to pilots in this TA the result could be applied to a significant addition to the proposed pay raise for Delta pilots. Though these maintenance costs are “one time savings” the value of 76 seat aircraft to the Company will remain well past the amendable date of this contract.

*

The increase in 76 seat aircraft is a concern. I do understand that many pilots hold to the mantra, “not one more RJ”. Eliminating the 3 to 1 ratio for trading 76 seat aircraft for 70 seat aircraft when above 767 mainline aircraft is cited as a positive in this tentative agreement. This is a moot point in my opinion since Delta would have to add forty five mainline aircraft before this option would come into effect. 76 seat aircraft are not just twenty six more seats than a 50 seat aircraft. These aircraft have two class service and can fly three to four hour stage lengths with reserve fuel. Seventy more 76 seat aircraft is the equivalent to a new DCI carrier or the size of two Compass airlines.

*

My concerns over the non-credited financial portions of this section of the TA can be better judged when reviewing compensation.* The TA does hold the line on increasing the number of seats in a DCI aircraft to seventy six. The large reduction in 50 seat aircraft, maximum number of DCI aircraft, proposed increase in captain positions on new SNB aircraft though minus the parking of DC9 aircraft and the associated captain positions, and the block hour production balance are compelling. These scope changes reverse the growth of DCI carriers and set a new standard for mainline and DCI carrier ratios. The proposed increase in 76 seat aircraft is the number one concern of the pilots that sit to my right. The turning point in my decision was the number of captain positions available with the purchase of SNB aircraft.* Yes, DC9 aircraft will be retired, but the Company cannot park as many 50 seat aircraft as planned without increasing capacity at the mainline. The increased 76 seat aircraft cannot fill that capacity requirement. If the company chooses not to park as many 50 seat aircraft as planned then they will be saddled with the engine overhaul costs.

*

Grade

3-

*

Compensation

*

Facts

·****** Pay rates:******* July 1, 2012-4%

************** ******** January 1, 2013-8.5%

*********************** January 1, 2014-3%

*********************** January 1, 2015-3%

·****** “Industry leading contract by December 31, 2015”. Does not include comparable FEDEX and UPS aircraft and positions other than 747/777 captain. Comparing pay rates three years in the future to current pay rates at other airlines is not a valid comparison since those pilot groups will being undergoing negotiations.* If a comparison to other pilot contracts is considered a deciding factor, a current comparison is more appropriate.*

·****** 3.5 year contract to December 31, 2015

·****** Increase in reserve guarantee

·****** 1% Defined Contribution increase on January 1, 2014 to 15%

·****** Average Daily Guarantee of 4:30 per day

·****** Reduction in lower tier (<$2.5B) profit sharing from 15% to 10% (33%) beginning in 2014 (based upon 2013 results of approximately 2.5% of pay)

·****** CQ training pay from 3:15 to 3:45 per day

·****** Distributed training pay from 1 minute pay for every 3 minutes of run time to 1 for 2

·****** Vacation pay from 3:00 per day to 3:15

·****** International pay for captain $6.50 and first officer $4.50. A $0.50 increase.

·****** Per diem increase of $0.10 on January 1, 2013 and an additional $0.10 on January 1, 2014.

·****** No credit for the early retirement of 50 seat aircraft, e.g. increased revenue on 76 aircraft and upcoming maintenance costs (see Scope discussion)

Discussion

The resulting pay raise is less than the direction given by the MEC, but not much lower than the direction of Council 20 pilots. Yes, Council 20 pilots asked for less than other bases. The profit sharing reduction was significant. Pay rates will approximate 2004 former NWA pay by January 1, 2015, but are far from former DAL rates. The cumulative pay increases are January 1, 2013-12.8%, January 1, 2014-16.2%, and January 1, 2015-19.7%. The increase in reserve pay is significant.

*

Opinion

This expedited negotiation began with a supposal from Richard Anderson in January 2012. As I have written before, a signed contract with DAL pilots allows the Company to consider many opportunities; some are time sensitive. These opportunities which the Company would like to consider and the upcoming maintenance costs on the 50 seat aircraft are leverage. I never did receive a response to why we did not push this issue other then it is hard to quantify scope. This opportunity may have begun with a change to scope, but even Delta Air Lines has determined that there is a significant cost savings to retiring the 50 seat aircraft early and we were in possession of that data.


The expedited negotiations did result in early pay increases and the “time value of money” does apply. “Industry leading pay” is at the end of the contract, does not include future pay increases at other airlines in (or scheduled to be in) contract negotiations, and only includes the FEDEX FEDEX and UPS pay rate on a 747/777 captain. Please review the Contract Comparison provided to you by the MEC for pay rates at all carriers.* The increased reserve pay guarantee, average daily guarantee, international pay increase, per diem increases, and early out program are positives. The pilot contract survey rated pay as the number one priority. The difference between the pilot’s number one and number two priorities was not a few percentage points, but greater than fifty percent. I have received two year-end profit sharing checks in my time as an airline pilot. Just as we are poised to receive exceptional profit sharing checks, the tentative agreement transfers thirty three percent of profit sharing to a two percent yearly increase in pay. As an A320 captain, the January 1, 2013 pay rate is $22.45 higher than my current pay rate or an additional $1,796 in an eighty hour month. For many pilots, it will be hard to pass on a 12.8% cumulative pay raise by January 1, 2013 in lieu of the possibility of further expedited negotiations to improve the current deal or traditional Section VI negotiations.*

*

Though, if you believe that valuable business opportunities are on the horizon (some opportunities are time critical) for this Company if an agreement is signed, then there is a good prospect that further expedited negotiations could occur.* In my opinion, this compensation package concedes that all future industry pay rates will be based on bankruptcy contracts and future marginal pay increases. This is not just a pay rate for Delta pilots, but a standard for our profession and industry. Any current lease or purchases of new aircraft, other equipment, food products, fuel, etc for Delta will be at the retail rate not at the post bankruptcy imposed cost as will now be set for pilot compensation. Why should our wages be determined from a bankruptcy baseline? In comparison FEDEX and UPS wages are higher. What is the reward for a smooth merger and expedited negotiations?

*

Delta Executive Vice President Mike Campbell stated, “our pilots and ALPA continue to benefit from a very constructive, proactive relationship, one that is unprecedented in our industry…This tentative agreement represents an investment in our pilots and our company as it gives Delta significant fleet flexibility, the ability to continue running a reliable operation for our customers, and a profitable enterprise for shareholders and for all Delta people. The fleet changes provided by this agreement, coupled with the productivity and profit sharing changes, cover the investments in our employees.”

This is a cost neutral contract for the company and a lost opportunity for Delta pilots. I do not believe we took full value of this opportunity in regards to pay. My opinion was in the minority.

*

Grade

2

*

Work Rules

*

Facts

·****** Increase ALV from 72-82 to 72-84

·****** Increase TLV from 74-79 to 75-80

·****** ALV/TLV changes will decrease staffing requirements

·****** ALV/TLV change is a trade for improvement in reserve pay guarantee

·****** 30 day bid months during summer months to lessen staffing sine wave. Received significant monetary credit for this change.

·****** Average Daily Guarantee of 4:30 per day

·****** Increased number of short calls with higher reserve guarantee

·****** Ended trip parking. A traded rotation must pass through PCS before returning to original pilot

·****** Increased per diem and laundry expenses

·****** Positive space dead head on DCI carriers

·****** Pre-posting of known vacancies which increases staffing requirements

Discussion

The pilot survey did not say that pilots wanted to work more days. Pilots want more pay. Pilot overstaffing during shoulder flying months was a major issue for Richard Anderson. He has commented on this concern more than once to the MEC. The TA increase in ALV/TLV is projected to increase flying by thirty to sixty minutes per month per pilot and reduce staffing requirements.

*

Opinion

The MEC was provided numerous staffing projections over the past few months.* These projections were based upon assumptions as there were many difficult to define variables. The staffing numbers changed with each projection and in my view were unreliable and optimistic. We do not know how many pilots will retire early, but we can determine the number of excess pilots based upon ALV/TLV increases.* We can determine the number of pilots required to staff a SNB purchase order, but not whether the Company will fill all vacancies created through the early retirement program. I understand the value of hiring pilots to the bottom of the seniority list, but I represent pilots that are currently on the DAL seniority list. I do expect some new captain and first officer positions on the SNB aircraft though many of these will come from mandatory displaced DC9 pilots. These staffing changes resulted in significant monetary credits which funded pay raises, e.g. 3% increase in pay for ALV/TLV change and the change to thirty day summer flying months for increased reserve pay. This is a reduction in work rules for pay; pure and simple.

*

Grade

2

*

Miscellaneous areas of the TA

*

Facts

·****** Sick leave at 100% pay

·****** Cancellation of sick leave monitoring program

·****** Increased sick leave credit for pilots with twenty or more years of service

·****** Improved hotel, laundry, and relocation benefits

·****** Reduced pilot portion of cost on former NWA medical plan N (“Option N”)/ contract medical plan from 27% of cost to 22%

·****** Improved long term disability

Discussion

None

*

Opinion

Positive change to sick leave and disability as requested by pilots through the Contract Survey.

*

Grade

5

*

Pilot Retiree Medical Account (RMA) Program

*

Facts

·****** All pilots available to participate if over fifty years of age, more than eighteen years of service, and a combined age and years of service total above seventy three

·****** No expressed limit on number of pilot participants. The ability to train pilot replacements will determine the number of participants

·****** +5,000 pilots are able to participate in this program

·****** Severance pay

·****** $30,000-$120,000 in eligible healthcare expense reimbursement for future use following retirement

·****** This program is a LOA that will only occur with the approval of the TA

Discussion

There are no perceived downsides to this program. There is no guarantee that all vacated positions will be fully backfilled since the airline is currently overstaffed. This program is targeted to wide body former NWA pilots.

*

Opinion

Well done by Negotiating Committee

*

Grade

5

*

Comments

For many of my peers the determining factor was the level of risk; a “bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” applies.* The members of the Delta MEC:

·****** Know what is contained in a tentative agreement

·****** Did/do not know what will occur if the TA was/is rejected by either the MEC or line pilots

·****** Know that Richard Anderson came to the MEC with the offer for expedited negotiations. The MEC chose in short order to investigate the supposal and then begin expedited negotiations. In my opinion a sense of emergency did not exist and self-imposed (potentially “false”) deadlines followed.

·****** Know that Delta management is considering many opportunities. Some of these have come to fruition, e.g. purchase of a refinery, bankruptcy at Pinnacle which will alter aircraft mix and pilot salaries at that airline and begin another round of whip sawing at the DCI carriers, and purchase of SNB aircraft for Delta mainline fleet. These three examples were Delta confidential information that until recently I could not discuss. After I began writing this Chairman’s letter the SNB purchase was publically announced as 717s. I decided to not go back and rewrite those sections. Delta Air Lines has already passed GO for the first time and is now contemplating buying up properties and utilities while the rest of the Monopoly players are stuck in jail. Note: that was an analogy not a reference to future action by Delta Air Lines.

·****** Know that Richard Anderson recently discussed $2-2.5B profits in 2013

·****** Do not know the Company’s maximum time frame for TA approval

·****** Do not know the time frame for possible decisions on opportunities being considered by the Company

·****** Do know that during the JCBA process deadlines were missed/ignored and negotiations continued

·****** Know that Richard Anderson not only has a plan B, but probably a C and D plan

·****** Know that the member ratification time frame was reduced to allow for a pay raise on July 1, 2012 if the TA is approved and more time to negotiate if the TA is rejected. The original sixty day time period in MEC policy for member ratification was established at a time before internet and email became a significant and prevalent communication medium.

·****** Know that double digit pay increase by the amendable date occurred by reducing profit sharing

·****** Know that the MEC was not informed of the proposed pay rates until the TA was presented to the MEC and it had been announced that a TA had been reached. This action made it more difficult for the MEC to re-direct the Negotiating Committee and MEC Leadership to re-engage the Company to press for necessary improvements before a vote of the MEC occurred. I strongly believe that a continuation of private negotiations between ALPA and the Company had a much better chance of improving results. Leverage was lost.

As we commented in the Council 20 May 20, 2012 Update, “We have deep respect for the process of membership ratification. Our vote was based on the quality of the TA not on your right to vote on the agreement.” I voted no because:

·****** The TA did not satisfy the guidance and parameters as communicated by line pilots and the MEC

·****** Known money was left on the table. This one time savings is based on a change to the PWA allowing for increased 76 seat aircraft and parking of additional 50 seat aircraft and the associated maintenance costs

·****** The MEC could have modified the direction, but that did not occur

The Delta MEC voted 14-5 in favor of this tentative agreement. I respect the will of the body. The more time I spend as a line pilot, the greater my respect for the ALPA Constitution and By Laws, the freedom of speech guaranteed for union members by Federal regulation (Landrum Griffith), and the democratic process in which each union member may participate. The only correct vote in this upcoming ballot is the one that you cast.

*

Fraternally,

*

Tom

*

DTW LEC Chairman's comments, sorry about the formatting.

MSP LEC Perspective
 

*

*
May 21, 2012
*
Chairman’s and Vice Chairman’s Perspective
*
Today, your MEC voted to approve the tentative agreement and to advance it to the membership ratification stage. As a line pilot, you will have the opportunity to vote on your personal acceptance or rejection of the agreement.
*
For the record, your LEC reps (Steve and Ron) voted “No,” meaning “do not send it to the pilots.” You may wonder why we voted not to send the agreement out for member ratification, and the answer is simply that the TA did not meet your Council 1 direction to us. We are elected to represent you. Through phone calls; e-mails; text messages; face-to-face conversations at LEC meetings, lounge visits, and PUB events; and, yes, the contract survey, you gave your direction to us, and the agreement simply does not meet that direction.
*
We felt that a better deal could have been achieved in very short order, if your MEC would have informed management that the agreement must be improved to ensure its passage by the pilots. We advocated that position at the MEC meeting with the hope that the rest of the MEC would join us in a timely attempt to better the agreement, but we were unable to gain that support.
*
Now that the TA has advanced to you, we enter into a different perspective regarding ratification. We anticipate your question: “Does this mean you will vote no on the contract?” The answer is that, in truth, the agreement is a solid base hit; perhaps a double. Some on the MEC view it as a homerun, and perhaps you will as well. I know that all of us, Ron and I included, were looking for something much better than a “single or double.”
*
So what to do now? You will soon see through road shows, notepads, and updates coming your way, that this agreement does improve your pay. You will achieve the current SWA book rates in 2015. You will receive an increase in per diem, better vacation, distance training pay, and most importantly, scope protections. As with any contract, you may find issue with some items, but they do not severely detract from the advancements.
*
We now enter into a discussion with you regarding what the TA offer is; not what it might have been. If it meets your expectations, then your decision will be easy.
*
Your representatives will be in the pilot lounge by the MSP Chief Pilots Office in the coming weeks to answer your questions about the TA. As well, we invite you to call, e-mail, or text us with any further questions you may have.
Fraternally,
Steve Mayer, Capt. Rep
Chairman
[email protected]
480-225-3985
*
Ron Hay, F/O Rep
Vice Chairman
[email protected]
952-334-0732
*
*
Secretary-Treasurer’s Perspective
*
For the past seven days, your Council 1 representatives and the Delta Air Lines MEC have been reviewing, analyzing, discussing, and receiving briefings related to the Tentative Agreement (TA) reached with the company last Monday night, May 14, 2012. This TA was reached a full seven months ahead of our current PWA’s amendable date. That in itself is an unprecedented achievement. Today, a majority of the voting members of the MEC chose to pass a resolution to give you, the line pilot, an opportunity to vote on the agreement.
*
In the coming weeks you will receive many e-mails containing full contract language of the proposed new Pilot Working Agreement, as well as numerous Negotiators’ Notepads outlining major sections and their changes. In addition, you will receive via e-mail a bullet-point document outlining the changes to the agreement, a Chairman’s Letter, and a webcast video. In the coming weeks, the Negotiating Committee will travel to every pilot base to brief this new agreement. You will have all the information you need to make an informed decision.
*
I believe this TA is a path to end the stagnation we have all been living with for the past 11 years. We had an opportunity before us, and we wanted something new—an expedited contract, not a long, drawn-out affair lasting months or years, as in the past. Our unanimously-elected Negotiating Committee, with support from the MEC committees and subject matter experts, was able to achieve a comprehensive TA in a compressed time line.
*
In this TA, you will find many industry-leading provisions. It provides for significant pay and work rule improvements, as well as increased and industry-leading scope protection.
*
If I were to have a vote (I no longer am a status rep, as we no longer have active second officers), I would have voted in favor of the resolution, as I believe that all 12,004 Delta pilots ought to have the right to examine the TA and vote their conscience.
*
Your representatives will be in the pilot lounge by the MSP Chief Pilots Office in the coming weeks to answer your questions about the TA. As well, we invite you to call, e-mail, or text us with any further questions you may have.
*
Please take the time to study and analyze the agreement. After that analysis, decide for yourself. You have a choice to capture this opportunity now or reject it in favor of the traditional process of contract negotiations. If the TA is not ratified by the line pilots, the MEC will pursue a new contract through the normal Section 6 process. Think about what is best for you and your family and cast your vote.
*
*
Dan Gradwohl
Secretary-Treasurer
[email protected]
310-714-2625
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Air Line Pilots Association, International
Air Line Pilots Association, International

Did they explain why the following language doesn't make all mainline/DCI block hour ratios unenforceable unless DALPA has control over the language in the DAL & DCI CPAs?

Company will be excused from compliance with the provisions of this Note in the event a circumstance over which the Company does not have control is the cause of such non-compliance.

Oh, is that to compare with the fallacy you have of the company negotiating more and improving the TA? His "fallacy" has a lot more likelyhood of coming true than your "fallacy" does. If the TA is turned down, don't you think it would be in the company's best in to proceed with their plan B? Here's why, if they agree to better terms if this TA is turned down they are opening themselves up to all future TA's being turned down because "they will always come back and negotiate a little bit better deal." This has far more ranging consequences for management than they might want to deal with...

I just thought the better of it and edited out a cheapshot because it's just not worth it. Try and debate the subject, not harangue and insult people. You've lost the debate when that happens.

Denny

If I get what you are asking, you are talking about a major Force Majure event. Any court is going to allow the company to do what they need to do to survive. I have to agree with what Tsquare said days ago with regard to this language, it's standard boiler plate and actually defines some events as NOT being FM. So from that stand point, it restricts the company's ability to claim FM. (I guess my glass is half full today for some reason:))

Under the TA, we don't have any influence with DCI but we do with Delta...

Denny

Maybe, the intangible consequence of a ta that does not pass by a good margin may far outweigh going back as well. This industry is shrinking and labor needs to be on board with any more moves. If they aren't it will make it increasingly difficult to win over DC.

Playing hardball for the union or the company has downside risk and a level of ROI.

You say "labor needs to be on board with any more moves." In our eyes we should be but in reality it is NOT necessary to management that we are on board. It makes running the company easier but it could just as easily revert to a UCAL senario and we are put on hold.

As far as your last sentence goes, I'd put a caveat in there "win over DC with the current administration." A different administration miiiiigggghhht have a different view.....

Denny

I probably came in too late to ask:

1. If mainline block hours shrink, to maintain the Mainline/DCI ratio CAN 50 seaters be the shock absorber rather than 76 seaters?

2. Are pilots coming with the 717s yes/no? Can we get it in writing from the company and DALPA if no?

3. Why does the new sick leave policy require us to surrender HIPAA information?

4. Where in the contract survey was the question about hiring 35% from alpa represented DCI?

5. Why was the RAH violation (intent) of our scope clause carved out for them to continue violating? Delta Corporate Jets too?

6. Why are there no ironclad protections in our contract from Midwest and Frontier operating as skyteam codeshares through Alaska airlines scope and flying DAL pax with non-permitted aircraft.

7. Since the 70 new 76 seat jets are the equivalent of two Compass sized airlines and have the lift equivalent and economics of 35 737-800s, why would DALPA not want them flown by mainline pilots?

I hope I got in under the wire...:cool:

Scam,

I had the exact same questions and there were answered, not to my satisfaction in all cases but I have made up my mind based on talking to the reps to vote yes. I am not skirting or hiding any issues by saying that it is too much to write here (i answered somethings earlier) but the reps were prepared and they had it avail for those who asked the questions. I was glad to get clarification and away from a lot of the half truths and tribal bs that has its own way of building in boards such as these. Just my opinion though! And only my vote, my mind can still be changed but no one has presented me with any meaningful reason to say no to this TA other than it should be more and yeah buts, I agree with them and the sentiment, it just does not feed the bulldog so to speak.

As far as Air Tran pilots. NO. The SLC rep said the deal was between DAL and Boeing. DAL would not enter into any deal that would bring the pilots with them. By dealing with Boeing only it avoids that. Getting it in writing was not asked but I do have a few more things I want to see in writing as well. Not sure if it will work on those points either.

Fiig