Originally Posted by Check Essential (Post 1210415)

This post illustrates the new dynamic at play in this vote.
This will be the first contract where senior Delta pilots no longer have a DB pension to protect.

In the past, a large number of senior captains could always be counted on to vote yes on any TA that would avoid a strike. They only had a few years to go before starting to collect retirement checks and they wanted no disruptions or harm to the company. They were totally risk averse because of the defined benefit. That factor has been eliminated.

As Timbo said earlier in the thread - this TA does almost nothing for senior widebody captains. The meager pay raises and the paltry 1% bump in DC will have little effect on their retirements. Plus the new work rules will only mean they have to work more hours per month in their final years.

A lot more of those previously automatic yes voters may be tempted to roll the dice and vote no this time.

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44 (Post 1210426)

Last year my buddy's final W-2 at Southwest was 50 percent higher than mine. We were hired within a few months of each other. This contract is industry leading pay wise if you take Fedex, UPS, and Southwest out of the equation. Put those three airlines in there and we will be close to their current rates in 2 1/2 years. Our work rules are no where close to industry leading. Southwest still has a 6 hour ADG. We now have a 4:30 ADG. This is just one of many. Jetblue has premium pay for anything over 80 hours. It would probably make those 99 hour forced reserve months more tolerable if we had this. I am a no vote though based on scope and pay. My survery number was 99 percent. It would not let me put a number in any higher. My true number would have been 35 up front. To get a yes vote out of me, the company would have to give me 20 percent up front, followed by 5 percent per year, no concessions in any part of our scope or the entire contract for that matter, and reserves paid like lineholders. Those are my minimums to vote yes. Also full retro pay if we go past the amendable date. The more complicated something is, the better chance there is of someone trying to slip something passed us. If we stop pretending to be managers and look at this for what it is, it should be a 90 percent NO VOTE. This thing does not meet one single minimum of mine. I'm guessing it doesn't meet anyone else's minimums prior to seeing it either. You yes voters are just lowering your standards. I feel my minimums are pretty realistic. I wanted this thing to pass...until I saw that first negotiating notepad letting us know that we are making concessions.

Originally Posted by eruption (Post 1210313)

What has happened to the younger generation? I mean you! There are no guarantees in life. When you started flying, there was no "guarantee" that you would be working for any major airline. You put money in your 401K without any guarantee. You have children and there's no guarantee that they will grow up leading a successful life, etc.

Sometime, there comes a point, that you have to look at yourself in the mirror and ask...."is this the best I can do".

If you are OK with this contract and think YOU have given all you can to get this deal, vote yes. All I am saying is I have been here 22 years and my best years all DAL were the first 3 years.

Then the merger/consolidation cycle started with PanAm and this career at DAL, in terms of QOL and now pay, after BK, has been steadily going down hill.

Do you think this cycle is going to stop? Just look at the NWA/DAL merger....Are there more airplanes, more pilots, UPWARD movement?

This TA keeps the "trend" line in a downwardly direction.....300 permanent jobs lost, higher ALV, working more days......

Yep, 325 76 seat RJ's should raise a huge red flag. If you are basing this "take it know" approach because of the uncertainty of the economy.....This one item should be enough to vote NO.

Because once they are on the property, if DAL re-enters BK, those extra 70 airframes could be the difference between getting furloughed/displaced backward or not.

There's a huge difference between 255 and 325 large RJ airframes. Mark my words....This one Scope item is going to come back and bite us down the road.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1210388)

Let's talk about the contention that the pay rates are a homerun. Go over to the DALPA site and read Mullis' treatise about Homo Sapiens Day. I am sure that most people on here find him only slightly more obnoxious than me, but I wil preface this by saying that even he and I have had our dust ups. Hell I even threatened to punch him in the nose once. But I digress. In that paper, he lays out the math on how this pay increase is on a percentage basis, vastly superior to C2K, and THAT is apparently the gold standard by which this agreement was to have been measured. Or you can ignore math. There is no spin. It is mathematics, and it is spot on.

Interesting that SWA has to be leaped all in one fell swoop for this to be considered a success. Frankly, I am not worried about SWA because their merger is about to slow their progress to a crawl if not stop it altogether in it's tracks. Look at how it is gonna play out. 1) Garry Ichan has already made public statements to the fact that they need to get costs under control. 2) They just had a merger where they fortunately were able to stomp one group down and limit the monetary damage to FO pay... What I mean here is that instead of having to bring the AT captains up to SWA captain pay, they now only have to bring them up to SWA FO pay because of the way they were essentially stapled... and if we sign this TA, that will become even more apparent because they will ALL be FOs with no potential to upgrade until 2015. That was a HUGE cost savings to SWa management, but they still have an entire group (1700??) pilots that have to be brough tup to at least SOME parity) Point is that they are probably not gonna make any great leaps forward in their upcoming contract. I predict the usual 3% increase, but nothing more than that.. We'll see. Even if they DO make a great stride forward, that would be all the more reason to vote FOR this because it is a 3 year deal, and we will be back at the table with them squarely in our sights... Easy breezy...

The paranoia about the RJs is just silly. The TA recaptures mainline flying. Period. The 717s must come online before the RJs can... the percentages of mainline flying relative to DCI increase with every set of 10 RJs that are allowed. That is a CLEAR win. The 76s are gone never to return. Since we are recapturing the block hours that DCI once flew, it is a win. Percentages of hourly flying are what create jobs.. not how many baby airplanes DCI has...

The furlough protections are absolute and punitive to the company. That is a no brainer.

Guys getting wrapped around the axle about Force Majeur need to understand what that clause means. They cannot just say that just because of unforseen, unplanned for normal events require contract avoidance they will get it is just plain absurd and paranoid. It means that catastrophic events that the company will do what it needs to survive. (Got news... they can do that anyway).


So.. sorry if I was blunt before... I was because it seemed as if you were looking for confirmation of your no reasons.

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44 (Post 1210426)

Last year my buddy's final W-2 at Southwest was 50 percent higher than mine. We were hired within a few months of each other. This contract is industry leading pay wise if you take Fedex, UPS, and Southwest out of the equation. Put those three airlines in there and we will be close to their current rates in 2 1/2 years. Our work rules are no where close to industry leading. Southwest still has a 6 hour ADG. We now have a 4:30 ADG. This is just one of many. Jetblue has premium pay for anything over 80 hours. It would probably make those 99 hour forced reserve months more tolerable if we had this. I am a no vote though based on scope and pay. My survery number was 99 percent. It would not let me put a number in any higher. My true number would have been 35 up front. To get a yes vote out of me, the company would have to give me 20 percent up front, followed by 5 percent per year, no concessions in any part of our scope or the entire contract for that matter, and reserves paid like lineholders. Those are my minimums to vote yes. Also full retro pay if we go past the amendable date. The more complicated something is, the better chance there is of someone trying to slip something passed us. If we stop pretending to be managers and look at this for what it is, it should be a 90 percent NO VOTE. This thing does not meet one single minimum of mine. I'm guessing it doesn't meet anyone else's minimums prior to seeing it either. You yes voters are just lowering your standards. I feel my minimums are pretty realistic. I wanted this thing to pass...until I saw that first negotiating notepad letting us know that we are making concessions.

Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg (Post 1210466)

If he's still an FO at Southwest, he will probably continue to be one for awhile thanks to stagnation and the Airtran merger. If you move up the ladder here due to the 717s and 20% pay raises all around within 3 years, you'll probably catch up to him, and maybe pass him. They really don't have many mandatory retirements scheduled in the near future at all either.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1210469)

We are still so far below the curve on work rules that even though our 2015 payrates will finally reach their 2012 rates, we will still be making considerably less than them.

This TA did little to help with the soft money.

Originally Posted by dragon (Post 1210216)

There have been several no papers out there and they are attacked with statements like "Black Helicopters" and voodoo math.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1210331)

No amount of logic will sway your decision because you refer to "voodoo math" and that right there say that you are not interested in factual information. (The math is indisputable by the way.)

Originally Posted by dragon (Post 1210216)

The furlough protections are very real, very tangible, and very punitive to the company. The recapture of scope is very real, and very tangible. So....

Originally Posted by finis72 (Post 1210482)

Their big w-2's come from 2 areas; one is as you say higher daily minimums( work rules) which was my biggest disappointment with this TA, the other is their ability to fly up to the FAR max at premium pay which would be great for me but not good for our junior pilots. I wish we could cherry pick but the pie is only so big. Large w-2's can be a double edged sword.