From the Council 20 reps:

Unfortunately, the short notice of the road shows combined with pre-existing family and flying commitments will not allow your Council 20 representatives to be at the road show this Friday. Since we will not be there, it will be up to you to pay attention and ask the hard questions. Don’t let us down!

Carl got this email along with the rest of council 20. I will leave it to you to decide why Carl is trying to deceive you.

 

From what I've read so far, I don't like most of it.

I think it's woefully inadequate in several areas, especially if you are already a wide body Captain, there's not much in it for you.

But, it's a baby step in the right direction, right now, vs. waiting a couple years for a full blown section 6 negotiations, and to get how much more?

I'm still undecided. I'll be working during both of the ATL road shows so I'm very glad the MEC is putting up a Q+A on the DALPA forum.

I want to see/hear more of the 'fine print'. I'm looking for the little loop holes that management always seems to find after the ink is dry, that some how our crack team missed in their rush to get'r done.

Like, exactly how many guys are going to go early? Not that it matters to me, I'm already near the top of the list but too poor to go early, but it could generate some upward movement for my 20 year F/O's....UNLESS...the company doesn't replace those early out pilots with upgrades to fill their slots.

AND PUT IT IN WRITING! Such as this: All Early Retirements MUST be replaced, one for one, as soon as training can be accomplished.

If you were here in 1996, you've already seen this dance. They let 500 guys go early, which bought them about 2000 Yes votes from the most senior pilots, who all wanted to go early, for POS 96. But then they started parking the L10-11's those guys were flying.

Net movement...just about zero.

I want to hear that they are NOT going to park wide bodys if/when the fabled 300 guys go early. I want to hear that all those who retire early MUST BE REPLACED, ONE FOR ONE.

I hear rumors Richard wants to buy 10 777-300 Er's, but can't get the financing rates he wants until this deal is done and our credit score is better.

Well, ok, but what if those 10 'new' airframes end up being REPLACEMENT jets for the age old gas guzzler 747's over the next 5 years?

Couple that with the new work rule 'efficiencies' and you get very little upward progression.

And what about another merger after the ink is dry? Put something in writing that will protect the bottom half of our list from being burried...again, under the "Synergy" a merger will create.

This thing is pretty vague from what I have read so far, and the pay rates and DC increases are tiny, certainly not enough for a Dead Zoner to retire on, early. Those early outs will be guys who are today age 63-64, and just looking to get their medical premiums paid for a few years.

There's very little in it for anyone under the age of 60 who's already a wide body Capt., not much in it for a 20 year wide body F/O either, he doesn't want to go fly 717 Capt, or he'd already be on the 88 or 737.

BUT...it's a quick, small step in the right direction and we can exchange openers on another contract in two years, starting from a higher place so...

Do we take baby steps now, or wait for what's behind door number two, two years from now? I'm still undecided and I'll try to get as much detailed information as I can before I vote.

I'm actually glad there were several LEC's who voted no, because that will encourage more pilots to take a much closer look at the fine print, than if the MEC had all voted yes, for yet another POS. Too many sheeple will vote which ever way a Unanimous MEC votes, so a split vote is a good thing in my opinion. I hope it gets more of the sheeple to get involved and go to the road shows and uncover all the little easter eggs that seem to spring up to bite us, as soon as the ink is dry.

 

To do an analysis we need more than pilot pay. Don't these outsourced carriers have their own Boards, CEOs, hiring departments, excess staffing in dispatch and scheduling, lawyers, lawyers, lawyers, HR, etc, plus a profit? We need those costs. We can get the airplane numbers.

Because if you believe it's only about pilot pay and there are no synergies to be found elsewhere, then why do airlines merge? I bet you we could find some synergies in overhead costs and profits.

So we need all of those numbers if you don't mind providing them.

 

That could be true but a roadshow audience is just a random snap shot.

I don't really understand this Bill, why do you want to make outsourcing more profitable for Delta?

The 717s are neat jets and the pay raises are just sitting there for the taking, but they're not worth making outsourcing more profitable.

 

I would bet the DTW reps were "asked" not to be there by the MEC because they both voted NO.

Now, I would love to see the DTW LEC have their own "roadshow" and explain it all.

 

That would be something!

 

It would. Do I really believe that..... about 80% of me says the MEC would never do that. But the other 20% of me believes it due to the past history of the MEC.

 

You'd lose that bet.

 

As much as I'm loath to do so, I agree with Slow.

Nu

 

Then why weren't they given ALPA leave to attend the meeting? I have seen ALPA leave granted for much less important issues.