Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

The idea of a union is that our Reps speak on our collective behalf.

Originally Posted by Elvis90

If they do then it should pass without a hitch.

Originally Posted by texavia

So exactly when is it they're going to start doing more than the pretense of this "speak on our collective behalf"?

Originally Posted by Phuz

Is that why they hold seminars to persuade everyone to see things their way? Shouldnt it be the other way around?

Originally Posted by bluejuice71

Jack, I'm not ok with further outsourcing. I don't think this TA does that. First off, 88 717's is a lot more than a handful. Our domestic flying will increase from 52% to over 60% while rj flying decreases from 48% to under 40%. I don't see how that's outsourcing. One thing that will never happen under this TA is what happened to me and hundreds of other pilots that got furloughed in 2001-2002. We were all losing our jobs while the regionals were hiring like crazy. That cannot happen under this TA. The 717's will generate growth at Delta. I am for that. Don't you think Delta will grow in the next 10-15 years? Guess what, as we get larger and add more airplanes and flights the DCI carriers will still be flying 450 airframes.

Originally Posted by APCLurker

Come on. Never say never. Force manure will be used once again and the contract will be meaningless. Did you learn nothing from your furlough? Not to mention that management always seems to "find a way" and the response from alpa is usually "we didn't envision that" or "we didn't think they would do it" or my favorite "but we may have lost." Which, by the way, looks like we gave them that one anyway in this TA.

Not only can it possibly happen again but we will have already given them even more 76 seaters via this TA.

And please don't fall for the "carrot" of 717's. If it is in management's best interests to get them, they will get them with or without the TA. Have pilots really not learned from decades of history?

Question: is it written in the ta that 717's will be arriving if the TA passes? I truly don't know. But if it isn't, then all we have are "promises." Promises of an agreement "in nature" or however they phrased the press release.

Management's desire to get rid of 50 seaters is leverage.

I also just cannot understand the willingness to make it more profitable for management to outsource our jobs.

Originally Posted by nwaf16dude

The 717 order is not specifically in the contract, but it does say that they can't get the extra 76 seaters without first buying 717's or 319's that aren't on the property at date of signing.

Originally Posted by CVG767A

I went to the CVG roadshow yesterday; it was the best attended ALPA meeting I've attended since C96. Tim O at the center, flanked by the four members of the Negotiating committee, as well as the (I believe) legal counsel from ALPA national. Not really much information that hasn't been seen/ posted before, but a lot of misinformation dispelled. A lot of the background information that ACL has posted. A few notes in very random order (with my comments in parentheses):

-Cost of this contract is $420 million. This was vehemently challenged by several in the group, citing the Detroit rep's widely known assertion that this is a cost-neutral contract. Tim stated that the cost-neutral statement was mostly for Wall St., and that a cost neutral claim would have to include the added revenue from both the CRJ900s and the 717s. There would be no other way to get to that number.

-Airtran pilots with 717s? NO, says Tim O. He said we're getting the planes from Boeing; they don't have many pilots... He also said that we will get the same number of pilots with the 717s as we got with the MD90s.

-The time sensitivity of the deal is being driven by major maintenance on the CRJ200s. Once Delta puts the money into them, they'll be around for a while. They had a chart with the RJ counts, both with and without the TA.

-Re caving on the number of 76 seaters: This is seen as the only way to get rid of the 50 seaters ahead of schedule, given the contracts we have with various regional carriers. Large RJ outsourcing is a part of Smisek's proposal at UCAL, Parker's proposal to the AMR guys, and AMR's 1113 term sheet.

-As far as ALPA knows, no deals have yet been inked with any RJ manufacturers regarding a large RJ. (I can't imagine that we don't have agreements in principle, though.)

-We will not be seeing any survey results. First, we may be entering Section 6 negotiations. Second, we don't want to let management see our playbook, even after the game.

-35% of new hires from DCI? New hires have been nearly 50% of our most recent new hire classes. This item required no negotiating capital, and was thrown in there in the hopes of getting an improved hiring policy for our furloughees from regional carriers. It will also provide a means of mitigating the effects of the unemployment among regional pilots that our agreement will cause. (I'm a little fuzzy on this one still. They may need some follow-up questioning.)

-250 early outs are being targeted by the retirement program. (While they assured us that management's feet would be held to the fire if they try to shut off the program with too few retirees, I would prefer firm numbers in the TA.)

-ALV +15. This is primarily to allow greater reserve utilization in categories that have mostly long international trips. (...but will crew scheduling run with this for all categories? Of course they will.)

-Surprisingly (to me, anyway), was their contention that the new reserve rules will not translate to less pilots on reserve. Scrappy (negotiator/ former scheduling committee) explained how higher reserve flying will increase numbers of reserves required under the manning formula. (Greek to me.)

-During the Q&A, a lot of anger in the group that MD88/90 pay wasn't raised to equal A320 pay (despite an 8% pay increase to MD90 rates). Tim countered with a discussion about a line with seats vs. pay, and some aircraft sitting above or below that line (i.e. 747, 757). This one wasn't even on the negotiators' wishlist, which upset some of the crowd.

-The handout section regarding pay shows monthly pay at 87 hours. This item was noticed by the audience, and the BS flag was (rightly) raised. They assert that the average monthly credit is 87 hours. (This has got to be caused by some outliers in international categories, that are able to really run up their time. I hope they change this in future handouts.)

-The last thing on the table was more seats on the RJs (Tim said 80 seats; did he mean 82?). The company offered to give all of the projected revenue to us in the form of pay.

-A wide body aircraft order is not under discussion at this time.

-If we turn down the TA, they have no idea where things will go from there. If we enter Section 6, we can expect fairly strong headwinds. The Section 6 process is, by it's nature, more friendly to management. We will be negotiating against a backdrop where UCAL, AMR, and USAirways make less than us already. The NMB will not be sympathetic to us.

-Q&A session was very contentious, with 90% of the pilot angst focusing on the proposed pay rates. (I left after 2 hours of questioning; I'm not sure what was discussed afterward)

Originally Posted by DAL73n

Delta Air Lines has shrunk from 17,000 pilots (combined NWA/Delta circa 2000) to 12,000 pilots today (and still shrinking with retirements that won't be replaced). While everyone seems to be trumpeting the fact that DCI will shrink by over a hundred A/C and over 5,000 seats the fact that this gives DAL its capacity discipline at DCI at no cost (by exchanging 2.7 50 seaters (unprofitable) for brand new 76 seaters (with First Class, probably WiFi and IFE) they can reduce the block hours of DCI while increasing their profits so new ratio for increasing mainline flying will actually not protect because they will meet the ratios by REDUCING DCI rather than increasing mainline. As for the 717s, they will not start arriving until July 2013 at a rate of 3/month, the first 21 will be strictly replacement A/C for DC-9s (so the first 7 months of no growth), and I predict the next 67 (for a total of 88) will be filled by displacements from other A/C (every other A/C is higher paying) so this will be another pay cut for most pilots at DAL. They will be able to do so due to the productivity improvements we gave up (ALV+15 for reserves, +2 hours ALV and TLV per month for lineholders, and 7 Short Calls for reserves (this is especially bad because unless it's the end of the month or a Golden Day coming up they will be able to use reserves a LOT MORE). Delta Air Lines main line WILL NOT GROW under this contract (at least in terms of the number of pilots or positive AEs through 2015). DAL has stated on more than one occasion that they are over staffed on Wide Bodies so this will get them through this summer and the fall AE will be another negative AE (it won't take long to see this if the TA passes). Also, you will see a 70 A/C order to Bombadier for their 90 seater (configured with 76 seats and and an ample First Class - say 8 seats).

Originally Posted by sailingfun

Delta airlines had 10,300 pilots when we peaked in 2001. The average pilot then flew 600 block hours a year. In 2007 system wide pilot block hours were the same as 2001. The average pilot now flew 800 block hours a year. 2500 jobs gone but not to RJ's. That is one reason I am not in favor of the TA overall. We have given enough jobs up to work rules.

Originally Posted by CVG767A

One of the FOs I flew with last week said the same thing, more or less. The difference is that our bargaining agent went back and forth over 300 times with that shady car dealer. Now, our agent is bringing us what they say is the best deal they can get. Is it? That's what we all need to decide.

Originally Posted by Cogf16

I have been essentially saying this for a few days. Our NC, MEC and all our lawyers/advisors(WHO HAVE BEEN KNEE DEEP IN THIS FOR SEVERAL MONTHS) have said this is all we can get. Now unless you believe they are intentionally deceiving us, wouldn't it be wise to strongly consider their recommendation??? Again, don't you think they have played all the "Vote No/Send it back scenarios" many times???