dragon

I've seen the reasons to vote no, and I've read the NNPs put out by our sales, I mean bargaining agent so what am I and others on here obviously missing. Please omit the term "Industry Leading" because even the most rabid pro-TA folks have to see it isn't.

Also, please leave the shrill Saul Alinsky style personal attacks out of this. There have been several no papers out there and they are attacked with statements like "Black Helicopters" and voodoo math.

If you're voting yes because your "union" is telling you to, please just don't both responding. My purpose here is to make sure I haven't missed something before we vote.

Thanks

nwaf16dude

Personally, I'm having a hard time with the decision. Getting over the initial sticker shock is tough. I thought we deserved much more, but deserved is such a subjective concept. Nobody outside of our pilot group cares about what we used to earn or what we think we are worth.

Do the math. I did, and with very conservative assumptions, this agreement gets me an additional 98,000 dollars in pay and DC by the end of 2015 vs. status quo. I assumed that I would remain on reserve and not upgrade, that reserve guarantee would average 75 hours, that I would never break guarantee, and that I would not get bumped out of my current seat. Not getting bumped is probably my weakest assumption. I didn't factor in the increase in training pay or vacation, because it's not a particularly significant amount.

View that info vs some real world financial data. The financial press is reporting that the average wage increase in 2013 will be 3%, which is up from 2.9% this year. Not that it really matters, but the military is getting a 1.7% raise next year. Look at the trends for the economy. I'm not intending to sell fear here, just a realistic view of the economy. But seriously, what are our chances to do better in continued negotiations, and can we do it fast enough (or get enough retro pay) to make up for what we lose if we turn this down?

Sure, there's much more to the agreement than money. I hate the additional 76 seat jets, but overall I think we have some good scope language improvements, despite all the "what-if ing" going on here. As a reserve guy, I see the reserve changes as positive. I really hate the current 70 hour guarantee, and don't mind working a little more to bump it up.

So, bottom line, are you a gambler? I play a little black-jack on my Vegas layovers. Every once in a while I'll even double-down on a $20 bet when I'm feelin' lucky and have had a few too many free cocktails. But even on my wildest Vegas weekend I've never bet 98,000.

iahflyr

What most people don't understand is that the company can only offer a contract valued at a certain amount of money, and I trust that the negotiating team has gotten that amount. If the contract is votet down this, Delta pilots will not get a higher value deal. The company will just move things around and keep the value the same as it is now.

gloopy

So where does that value amount come from and who determines its validity? If this one is cost neutral for the company (even if its a net gain for the pilots...let's put a pin in that for now and assume it is to move things along) that is only because of the one time 50 seater albatross opportunity and our union is saying as much. So does that mean next time it also has to be cost neutral for the company? Record profits and they tell us not one penny more unless you find it for us. I guess we still have 150 more 50 seaters to monetize next time plus more large jets at non union DPJ we could sell, more profit sharing to give up, maybe less pilots jobs through even more productivity, plus the grievance money we will settle for when SkyWest violates our contract, but not thiers, by flying something over 76 seats for someone someday. You really don't think we're going to enforce that one, do you?

dragon

Thanks,

I only really know reserve. I have a line (for now) but see displacements coming. I'm usually a glass is half full guy, but getting a little jaded.

The pay rates are better than nothing.

FIIGMO

Dragon,

As a bottom guy on reserve hoping for movement, I am a yes vote. I dont mind the heat I am taking here (just surprised at who is giving it because gosh darn it "I thought they liked me"). The over all package is positive and has real language in it. I agree with many no voters arguments and try and see where they are coming from and the reasons. But I have not been convinced when it comes down to specifics. Too many what if's and yeah but's. I agree the same can be said for the yes side as well. Reality , comes down to the fact that any deal we get if voted down MAYBE equal but certainly not better. The positives to our group, my QOL and most important my family are what is driving my vote. I asked for 25% pay in the survey. Got 19.7%, it is a negotiation after all.

eruption

You should vote yes if you think it's what you are worth, for the job you do....

1. Did you, personally, do anything other than fill out a survey? That's basically all the average line pilot did to get us where we are. To get what we deserve, the entire group has to participate....rally's, informational picketing, volunteer when needed, etc.

Guess what....that's all ALPA wants you to do. The MEC hierarchy runs the show with input from ALPA. You are simply an impediment, a mushroom to be kept in the dark until, of course, they need you to call your Congressman, write a letter, etc.

Did your survey mean anything in these negotiations....of course not!

2. I planned on going through a full section 6 to get full value for my sacrifices over the last 8 years. Guess what...... that's what it took in C2K. Richar (Cost neutral) Anderson is not going to give a thing, unless, you prove to him that you are willing to go to the "mat"

3. It's hard to blame anyone for voting yes. The Lee Moak/Tom O'Malley appeasement method has been entrenched into DALPA for so long now guys have forgot what ALPA is all about.

Any chance for me to recoup my BK losses over my career is gone.

DALPA fell short of my expectations in every possible way. If it wasn't for their enforcement of Agency Shop (Which the line pilot didn't get to vote for), DALPA would have been gone years ago.

4. 255 seats vs 325 seats. All you guys that say it's a good did an "what if" the economy.

Let's say the economy really does take a dump and we head back to a BK scenario.

Right now we know they are capped at 255, if they go into BK, would you rather have 325 large RJ's or 255? IMO, the 50 seaters are a non event///they are going away ASAP.

Finally, I can't believe anyone would take the scraps being thrown our way.....it's an insult!

Did you forget the sacrifices you personally made and the stress your family has endured to even get where you are in this career?

It's time for payback....but you have to fight for it.

FIIGMO

Again, I agree with what you are saying. I still want some specifics as to what you think we will gain from turning it down. ( i get it it sends a message and we told them) After that. After 3 years what will you and I have to show for it besides the T-shirt?

I ask, because this is the very question not one no voter has been able to explain. In my mind it is critical to get me to vote no. I will change my vote to a no if anyone can quantify what a no vote will get us in the end.

forgot to bid

Dragon, you should vote yes if you'd like to make outsourcing more profitable.

texavia

Yes Sir !!!!!!!!!!