Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
Council 66 Perspective >

Council 66 Perspective

Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

Council 66 Perspective

Old 06-15-2012, 08:54 AM
  #1  
New Hire
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 5
Default Council 66 Perspective

June 11, 2012



Scenes from a New York Pilot Lounge



The last few weeks have been busy and eventful to say the least. We are very aware that the TA has stirred emotions and prompted questions, and we have been working very hard to answer your calls and e-mails as soon as we possibly can. Please feel free to continue to call and write. In addition, this week we began making lounge appearances, and we will continue these for the rest of the month. We highly encourage you to talk to us if you see us there; we welcome (and indeed seek out) the opportunity to address your questions and concerns.



We have no intention of selling anything to you. We believe that this TA is the right contract at the right time and are proud of the work that went into achieving it. That said, we understand that reasonable people can have different opinions and interpretations and will understand completely if some of you come to a different conclusion.



We only ask two things:



Please take the time to understand what this TA contains. The amount of misinformation that is being spread (intentionally by some it seems) is staggering. We will answer every question you have. We will communicate as much as we can. We will explain every section of the contract, if you give us that chance. This is a huge decision—make it based on fact and content, not rumors and falsehoods.


Please consider that 31 (including the MEM reps) rational and intelligent Delta pilots examined and debated this TA from 0800 until after midnight for seven straight days. We argued, studied, talked, listened, and spent hour upon hour in serious contemplation. We can assure you, none of us took our responsibilities lightly. It was an incredibly stressful and emotional week, at the end of which the majority of the MEC concluded that this TA was worth ratifying. Despite assertions to the contrary, we did so not because we are stupid, weak, scared, or arrogant, nor because we are management lackeys. We did so as a business decision, not an emotional one. We supported this TA because, after very thoughtful consideration, we believe it represents the best path towards restoring our profession.


Before you make your decisions, we urge you to give us the courtesy of allowing us to explain how we made ours.



There will be a New York Contract 2012 Road Show on Tuesday, June 12, from 11:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. at the La Guardia Airport Marriott Hotel (click here for map). The MEC officers, Negotiating Committee, subject-matter experts, and your reps will be in attendance. We strongly urge you to attend to have your questions answered and your opinions heard. This is your union and your decision. We strongly urge you to become as informed as possible before casting your vote.


A web-based version of the Contract 2012 road show is now available and can be accessed from the Media Gallery or from a link on the Section 6 page of the Delta MEC website. A condensed version of the PowerPoint presentation used in the road show has also been posted to the Section 6 page, both as a PDF file and as a PowerPoint show.



Contract 2012 Frequently Asked Questions are now posted to the Delta MEC website. The FAQs are updated daily, as questions concerning the TA are collected from the pilot group. The FAQs provide an organized, easily-accessible collection of answers to Contract 2012-related questions.



Membership Ratification: The Contract 2012 membership ratification window will open on Friday, June 15 at 10 A.M. ET and will close on Friday, June 29 at 10 A.M. ET. Instructions on how to cast your vote will be provided prior to the opening of the window. Please note that the ballot certification roster will be produced on June 14. Only active, executive active, and grievance pending members in good standing at the time the eligibility roster is pulled will be eligible to vote. If you are unsure of your membership status, please contact [email protected] or 1-888-FLY-ALPA x2660 prior to June 14 to ensure that you are eligible.


From our time in the lounges, we have noticed that we receive a lot of similar questions. It might help if, in addition to answering them in person, we include a few here.



Pilot Question or Concern (PQC): This isn’t enough! We deserve more!



Our Response (R): You are 100 percent correct. We could not agree more. We believe strongly that the Delta pilots (and indeed all pilots) are worth more than this and deserve more than this. If we didn’t, we would not have volunteered. There is little debate about what we deserve, the issue is only how best to achieve it.



PQC: NO 4-8-3-3!!!



R: This contract is not 4-8-3-3. 4-8-3-3 with a red slash through it makes for a nice sticker, an effective rally cry, or an avatar on the forum. But it isn’t true. In fact, the amendable date of our current contract is December 31, 2012. As of the amendable date, you will have a raise of 12.84 percent, followed by an additional 3 percent for each of the next two years. Our negotiators were able to get a portion of that first-year raise early, before the amendable date; we should not be penalized or criticized for that.



PQC: We are still working under bankruptcy wages! We aren’t even keeping up with inflation. You guys just keep caving in to management demands!



R: First and foremost, let us repeat ourselves, so that there can be no mistake—no fodder for the forum: we believe that we are underpaid. We are not satisfied. That said, we refute the notions listed above. If this TA is ratified, by January 1, 2015, our compensation will have risen 53.2 percent from our bankruptcy wages. Enough? Of course not! We need and deserve more. But those who talk tough and are holding out for grand slams are the ones who really are still working under bankruptcy wages. We favor strategies that put money in your pockets over those that sound tough but achieve nothing. Inflation is of course a concern—one that (much like the time value of money) should not be ignored. Inflation does eat at our gains, just not as drastically as some assert. If this TA is ratified, on July 1 our compensation will have risen 31.8 percent since 2008. Inflation since then has risen by 9.0 percent (using the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ figures [data only goes to April, 2012, so the number might be very marginally different in July]). Again, we want more, we deserve more, and we will continue to fight for more at each and every opportunity that arises.



PQC: You didn’t follow the pilot survey.



R: We honored our members’ survey data when we gave our direction to the negotiating team, and we told them to get the very best deal that they could, while keeping the needs of the pilots and our direction in mind. We believe that they did so. While the rates they were able to achieve did not reach what the pilots (or we) were hoping for, they did extract significant value. And in the same survey, the pilots overwhelming indicated that they would rather accept slightly lower pay early or on time instead of a larger raise after long and protracted negotiations. In short, while not every desire was met (no contract can meet every desire), we do believe that the pilot survey was respected and, in the end, followed to the very best of our ability.



PQC: The Negotiating Committee ignored the MEC and didn’t seek or follow direction.



R: While some have asserted this, the vast majority of the MEC does not believe this to be the case. The Negotiating Committee met with the MEC to receive input and direction many times, usually in person and via conference call when meetings could not be arranged in time. They updated the MEC on the status of the negotiations often and increased their updates when the MEC requested they do so. At the end stage of negotiations (as has happened in so many [all?] negotiations at Delta in the past), the committee (armed with the MEC’s direction) and the company hammered out a deal. The MEC reelected this Negotiating Committee unanimously. We gave direction and trusted them to do a job. Now it is up to you to determine if the job they did was good enough. The majority of the MEC decided that it was.



On a related note, while most of the MEC does not think the procedure was flawed, those who do are certainly welcome to that opinion. They can fight to change the procedure going forward. But that discussion should be held on another day. It is irrelevant to our current decision. We have a TA. We need to judge its contents.



PQC: How do you know this is the best we could get? We can get more if we simply go back to the table.



R: Delta management has two paths. We’ll call them paths “A” and “B.” Path A includes shifting a great deal of capacity from DCI to mainline. We have been begging them to do so for years. We prefer (but are not married to) path A. Path B is to more slowly park the 50-seat jets as soon as their contracts allow, hence a much slower drawdown of DCI capacity and, therefore, a much slower corresponding increase of mainline-capacity growth.



Plan A and plan B both represent financial implications to management. They would prefer plan A because they believe it will make Delta more profitable. The trick, and the fleeting opportunity that we had, was to extract the most value possible for the Delta pilots for plan A. The rub? That number is finite. At some point, plan A becomes more expensive than plan B, and management (because they are not stupid) will almost certainly choose the less expensive option. At that point, we believe that we will lose the opportunity to extract financial gains from something that also benefits us—the shifting of capacity (jobs) from DCI to mainline.



We were recently briefed by Linda Pachula, the head of the National Mediation Board. During her brief, she discussed common mistakes that she has seen unions make. Most common was: “They didn’t listen to their experts.” We have experts working for us. Despite allegations to the contrary, we have professional negotiators—lawyers who collectively have assisted in more aviation labor negotiations for more years than perhaps anyone else in the country. We have financial analysts, accountants, and subject-matter experts on every section of the contract. And we have our Negotiating Committee, men the entire MEC trusted enough to unanimously reelect. They studied the plans and financials extensively. They negotiated fiercely (the idea from some that they just accepted management’s first offer is simply laughable). They extracted significant value. And they firmly believe two things: 1) we got every penny of value we could at this time, and 2) if we reject this deal, the company will revert to plan B and pursue traditional (and usually lengthy) Section 6 negotiations.



This is what the experts we hired told us. They saw the books and were in the room. And we trust them. The people who assert that we could do better if we send this back are basing that opinion on a hunch or a hope. We chose not to risk hundreds of millions of dollars for the Delta pilots on a hunch. We chose to heed the lessons of other unions’ failures. We chose to listen to our experts.



PQC: The 50-seaters were going away anyway. The 717s were coming anyway.



R: The 50-seaters are under contract until into the next decade. Some could be parked, but not nearly the number that this deal allows. And if we have painfully learned anything over the last few years, it is that management is incredibly conscious of capacity control. If they cannot park the 50-seaters, then they will not have as much capacity loss to make up at mainline. We could possibly get some 717s, just not nearly as many.



PQC: We allowed the company more 76-seaters.



R: This is simply false. And it is a good example of why we would like the chance to explain some of the intricacies of this TA, especially the scope clause. Under our current contract, if management simply takes delivery of the planes they have on order (not even counting the 717s), they would then be free to trade the 70-seat jets for up to 255 76-seat jets. The TA only allows them 223. This is a net reduction of 32 permitted 76-seat planes. (So as not to seem disingenuous, under the TA they would be permitted to keep the 70-seaters.)



PQC: What would prevent management from simply parking mainline airplanes as soon as they get more 76-seaters?



R: Today, under our current contract, absolutely nothing. Delta could take delivery of 102 more 76-seat jets bringing them to a total of 255 76-seat jets, and then park any and as many mainline jets as they want. The MD-90s and 737s we have coming next year are more than enough to trigger the 3:1 ratio in our current contract to allow Delta to acquire more 76-seat jets. Under the TA, the ratio of mainline domestic block hours to DCI block hours have to grow with every 717 we get. We will not and cannot promise that Delta mainline will grow. But now, for the first time, we have language that will prevent Delta from repeating what has happened so often in the past. There will be no more shifting of flying and jobs from mainline to DCI. There will be no more watching DCI grow while we shrink.



PQC: You caved on scope. You sold scope for a few dollars.



R: False!!! This scope section is a huge win. It now represents by far the best job protection among the legacy carriers (as Southwest’s management has never tried to fly a RJ, we hesitate to offer too much credit to them for their admittedly good scope clause). And it is a vast improvement over our current scope. “Not one more seat, not one more jet, not one more pound!” We heard that mantra loud and clear and indeed echoed it often. This TA represents a huge decrease in seats, jets, and pounds for DCI, and shifts that flying (jobs) to mainline. It prevents management from taking one more 76-seat jet until 717s arrive and 50-seaters are parked. It sets a hard cap on RJs at 25 percent fewer airplanes than they currently operate. That hard cap is set in stone. If management wants to grow Delta Air Lines, they now must do it with Delta mainline airplanes. And Delta mainline pilots. And with the growing ratio of mainline block hours to DCI block hours, if management ever wants to shrink Delta, they must also shrink DCI. The shifting of our flying to RJs is finally over, if this TA is ratified.



Perhaps an even bigger threat is with bigger airplanes. This TA secures industry-leading protections against joint ventures, tightens codeshare restrictions, and significantly improves the Alaska codeshare agreement.



PQC: But these bigger RJs are more capable aircraft than the 50-seat RJs and will take all the narrow-body flying.



R: Not true. Our current PWA limits 85 percent of all RJ flying to within 900sm. This has not changed with the TA. In reality, today the 50-seat RJ does the bulk of the shorter legs. There are over 200 50-seat RJs that will be removed from the system if the TA passes, which will have a serious impact on how far the 76-seat RJs can fly to maintain the 85 percent rule. The shorter 50-seat flying will have to be backfilled by the 76-seat jets, and the longer legs will be taken over by mainline as the 717s pick up the capacity that is being parked by DCI.



PQC: You sold guys out. The ALV increase and changes to reserve will have guys flying to 99 hours, getting displaced, and losing green slips.



R: Simply not true. While the ALV did increase by two hours, reserve flying is no longer tied to the ALV—it is tied to the reserve guarantee. This means in a month with an 84 hour ALV, a reserve is full and can’t fly any more when he reaches 80 hours. Consider, for example, a pilot who has two weeks of vacation and is awarded a reserve line. His reserve guarantee will be set at approximately 38:00 (depending upon the ALV and the number of days in the bid period), and his line will contain approximately nine on-call days. Under the current PWA, this pilot must remain on call until his projection is within two hours of the ALV. Under the TA, he will be FULL once his projection reaches 38:00.



So how could a reserve fly to 99 hours? With the TA, a reserve who is under the guarantee is allowed to be assigned a trip that is up to the ALV+15. In a category that does long trips (think the 12-day NRT trips in the NYC 7ER bid package that are worth over 80 hours), this could mean getting assigned just a single trip. In a category with shorter trips, getting to this point is much less likely. For this pilot to get to the 99-hour point, the ALV must be 84 hours (since the TLV must be from 75–80, an 84 hour ALV cannot be the norm). Since, with the SOT, the reserve system changed to the bucket system, for the pilot to get to the 99-hour trip, all the pilots in that category must have flown to the final bucket. When that trip gets assigned to the final bucket to the pilot who is sitting with the hypothetical 79:59 minutes flown (under the guarantee), that pilot must either be 1) the junior pilot, 2) the only pilot with the days available or legal for the trip, or 3) a pilot who raised his hand and volunteered to fly via a yellow slip. So could it happen? Sure. Is it likely to happen? No. Especially when considering that the staffing formula requires the company to add more pilots to that category when the reserves average over 60 hours. Since, in this example, all the reserves have to be over 60 hours for this pilot to get this trip, the next time the ALV is 84 in that category, it is extremely unlikely for this pilot to get to this point again because enough pilots were added to the category to ensure that reserves don’t exceed 60 hours.



So what about all the green slips that are going to disappear? That’s not going to happen either. Nothing in the TA has changed the trip coverage sequence. Since green slips are typically given out with less than 12 hours’ notice, white slips will still be proffered first, then short call reserves, and then green slips. A pilot’s ability to fly to ALV+15 has little to no bearing on whether he can cover a short-notice trip as a reserve.



But surely the ALV/TLV changes mean that I’m going to get displaced right? Wrong again. While it is correct to point out that the changes to the ALV/TLV, in addition to changes to the 30/31-day bid periods, create a productivity gain for the company that requires 300 fewer pilots, what people forget to do is add back in all the extra pilots required from the other changes to the contract. When you factor in that known absences are now part of the staffing formula (MLOA, SLOA, PLOA), when you consider the extra X days for all the reserves, the increase to the vacation pay and training pay (don’t forget, that is pre-posted and if you have more credit on your line, that’s fewer trips you’ll be awarded—so those trips go back into the pot for other pilots), you suddenly don’t have a 300-pilot efficiency. Factor in the early retirement program and the block hours arriving at mainline from DCI thanks to the scope gains, and this TA does not even slightly encourage a single displacement.



PQC: This contract is cost-neutral.



R: It most certainly is not for the Delta pilots! This contract represents significant gains for the Delta pilots, including over $400 million in annual pay increases by 2015 (not counting the value of potential growth, new pilots, etc.). If the company parks RJs to help fund it, we have very little problem with that. We are far more concerned about how much money we can put in your pockets than we are about where that money comes from.



PQC: You are fear mongering! We could have a great deal very soon if we turn this down.



R: Our intention has never been to spread fear. It would be irresponsible of us (and you) to make any decision without considering the risks. We had to weigh what could happen if we didn’t grab this opportunity. First and foremost (because of the company’s current plan, the limited window to execute it, and their need for our help), we do not believe that we would be able to achieve nearly the improvement in scope in the future that we have secured with this TA. Second, we needed to consider historical precedence, the limitations and constraints of the Railway Labor Act, and the current status of negotiations at other airlines. The average length of time it takes to negotiate a contract after entering mediation is 29 months. We would not be eligible to enter mediation until three months after our contract amendable date (roughly ten months from now). So if we simply take an average length of time in negotiations, we could expect a contract 39 months from now. How much of a raise would it take three years from now to make up the money that this TA represents? (Hint: it would be a larger pay raise than this (and probably any) pilot group has ever achieved.) Also consider that, due to the short term of this TA, we could conceivably already be in negotiations for our next contract by then. Again, we are not fear mongering. By considering the leverage we have now vs. the appalling lack of leverage that the RLA affords us, we firmly believe that this is the best deal for the Delta pilots, and we believe that it deserves your vote. You are of course free to disagree and vote “no.” If you do vote no, however, you should do so fully understanding the risks. Will we have greater leverage to extract greater gains in the future? After careful study, we do not believe that to be the case.



We support this deal. We are proud of it. And we believe that you should vote for it.



We know that the above represent a mere fraction of the questions that you have, but we sincerely hope that they help a bit as you weigh this decision. Please continue to educate yourselves before making your decision. Please continue to call or e-mail us. And please try to attend a road show, or at the very least, watch it online at Public.



Thank you for allowing us to serve you. Thank you for your trust. And thank you to the vast majority of you who, whether you agree or disagree with our actions, realize that we are Delta pilots just like you, living and working under the same contract as you.



We remain committed to improving this career for all of us.





Sincerely,



Tom, Chris, and Patrick
tallplt is offline  
Old 06-15-2012, 10:54 AM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
DoubleTrouble's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: 757 Left
Posts: 169
Default

Respectfully not buying it.
DoubleTrouble is offline  
Old 06-15-2012, 11:00 AM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: DAL FO
Posts: 2,137
Default

Originally Posted by DoubleTrouble View Post
Respectfully not buying it.
I'll respectfully ask which part? Any why? I'm a solid YES voter, but I can easily be swayed.

All I'm looking for is someone to show me the plan that gets us more than this TA provides. This is not flamebait. If you can show me (without bluster or rhetoric) in real terms how we will achieve a better contract for Delta pilots then I will log back in and change my vote.
LeineLodge is offline  
Old 06-15-2012, 12:02 PM
  #4  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Jan 2012
Position: DAL
Posts: 623
Default

Originally Posted by tallplt View Post

PQC: We allowed the company more 76-seaters.

R: This is simply false.
you must be joking.
More Bacon is offline  
Old 06-16-2012, 08:01 AM
  #5  
New Hire
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 5
Default

Originally Posted by More Bacon View Post
you must be joking.
With which part of the explanation do you disagree?
tallplt is offline  
Old 06-16-2012, 08:09 AM
  #6  
Moderator
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Default

Originally Posted by More Bacon View Post
you must be joking.
Not really. Under the current contract Delta is allowed to operate 255 76 seaters. Under the TA, they're limited to 223 76 seaters. It's true that they have to exchange CRJ700's for CRJ900's. But it's also true that the company reduced the allowable number of 76 seaters.
johnso29 is offline  
Old 06-16-2012, 08:59 AM
  #7  
Da Hudge
 
80ktsClamp's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Default

Originally Posted by johnso29 View Post
Not really. Under the current contract Delta is allowed to operate 255 76 seaters. Under the TA, they're limited to 223 76 seaters. It's true that they have to exchange CRJ700's for CRJ900's. But it's also true that the company reduced the allowable number of 76 seaters.
It's quite the spin though, you've got to admit.
80ktsClamp is offline  
Old 06-16-2012, 10:29 AM
  #8  
Moderator
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Default

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp View Post
It's quite the spin though, you've got to admit.
It is spin to a degree. But we have to think for ourselves man. People need to read, ask questions, understand, and debate. We shouldn't just read this stuff as is. Interpret it, digest it, and challenge it. I don't mind people voting NO. Heck even I voted NO. But I don't like lying. And I'm not accusing you of that. I just want people to vote because they're truly educated about this TA. I know you went through that process.
johnso29 is offline  
Old 06-16-2012, 10:35 AM
  #9  
Da Hudge
 
80ktsClamp's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Default

Originally Posted by johnso29 View Post
It is spin to a degree. But we have to think for ourselves man. People need to read, ask questions, understand, and debate. We shouldn't just read this stuff as is. Interpret it, digest it, and challenge it. I don't mind people voting NO. Heck even I voted NO. But I don't like lying. And I'm not accusing you of that. I just want people to vote because they're truly educated about this TA. I know you went through that process.
Bingo- where is the line between spinning and lying? It drives me crazy seeing these publications sent to all the pilots with statements where you have to really read in between the lines and with incomplete pictures of the contract.
80ktsClamp is offline  
Old 06-16-2012, 11:58 AM
  #10  
Back on TDY
 
Carl Spackler's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Default

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp View Post
Bingo- where is the line between spinning and lying? It drives me crazy seeing these publications sent to all the pilots with statements where you have to really read in between the lines and with incomplete pictures of the contract.
And then they claim they're not trying sell us on it.

Carl
Carl Spackler is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
RPC Unity
Union Talk
54
12-29-2011 01:47 PM
Pinchanickled
Regional
33
12-17-2010 06:58 PM
Jetrecruiter
Regional
32
10-03-2009 06:47 AM
Carl Spackler
Mergers and Acquisitions
46
04-24-2008 06:23 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices