It's so simple
 

A NO vote is a NO brainer in my opinion.

This isn't flame bait or anything. Why would you vote in a contract that has concessions? There are many concessions in this contract. The time for concessions is over, or so I thought. Why would you vote in a contract where the work rules actually reduce our pilot group? Or a contract that farms out more RJ's? The most blatant concession is a 7th short call. DALPA can't put a spin on that one!

You can sit here and argue the various pros/cons all day, but the bottom line to be is very simple. There are concessions in this contract. I thought a contract was about improving things.

You mean you're not using your brain if you vote NO? Precisely! All you have are hunches and guesses as to what will happen next. Worried about a 7th short call? Bid something else. Maybe the 717 would give you a line? Oh wait, you don't really want that.... Remember, subtract 200 RJs sooner to take away capacity to be covered by 70 76 seaters and 88 717s. Then throw in a ratio that favors mainline by an extra 6%, which is significant. Ah heck, we can ask for a 28% DOS pay raise in a few years. No biggie.

I am voting no for many reasons. First we did not meet Janet pay. They are flying the 737-700 for SWA pay and get government pensions and per diem as well. They fly short legs carrying paxengers that don't ***** much. Their uniform or lack of would be a bonus. Meals provided and great medical care. Every night in their own bed. How dope is that

Uh, that bed is in Las Vegas so I'm going to have to say, uh...not very dope.

A 477 Page document is anything but simple. How do we label the price tag on the scope? Ask a DAL 2000's furloughee, when DAL whacked many hundreds of mainline jobs and then the DCI carriers hired thousands.

This is not a simple decision, it is a complex document with complex changes that require complex thoughts.

In 2002 they replaced our routes and our jobs with 50 seaters. It might not happen initially if this TA is approved, but soon enough, they will relace our routes and jobs with 76 seaters. That's not a hunch or a guess. A hunch or guess would be to think you could tighten scope on 76's seaters at some point in the future. That's not going to happen, unless we trade them for 90 seaters. I could see that happening in 2 1/2 years for maybe 4/8.5/3/3.

Same old infantile response - if you don't want to sit reserve bid away from it. Using that logic, reserve will get more onerous with every contract going forward and the gives used to increase lineholder QOL because, after all, reserve is a choice. Plus, I think Lumberg has developed Snarky Response Syndrome(SRS). He/she just can't let a no vote post go unmocked. I feel for you Bill, I am also a sufferer.

According to DALPA, reserve is going to be so lucrative under the new contract that you wont be senior enough to hold it! HAHAHAHAHA :rolleyes:

It's been one of the great psychological successes of management/DALPA. They've redefined negotiations for many pilots. Used to be that concessions only belonged in negotiations when the company's finances were bad. Now after a decade of this mindset, DALPA has agreed with management that concessions are now part of negotiations even when your company is making billions. The BS about sucking it up because all these years of profits will provide us the leverage to regain our industry leading contract, is now replaced by DALPA saying our survey requests were invalid because they are "out of context". Now every gain in our TA is fully funded by concessions in other areas. And this during a time of record past profits, record current profits, and record forecasted future profits.

Carl

My spouse is the Delta pilot in the family and I'm with UCAL. She will make more as am md88fo than I do as a 777fo if the TA passes thus becoming the breadwinner of the family.
I am lucky to be able to see and feel both sides of having a TA to look at versus fighting for one for close to 3 years now at UCAL with no NMB release in sight. It is interesting watching the Delta TA presented 6 months ahead of the amendable date yet most can't seem to grasp the opportunity presented them. Management doesn't seem to present many opportunities at the negotiating table any more and the NMB is no help either. Sure this contract could probably be a little better but I think your NC got everything they could at this time. Take it and fight another battle 2 years from now or join us at UCAL in misery.

(not sure how the wife is going to vote but she lives with my UCAL frustration everyday and knowing management controls the next opportunity whenever that is)

Interesting perspective. How do you feel about our TA's Sec 1? This is an honest question. No flame intended. It seems other UAL pilots(a very small representation I'm sure) have been on here chastising anyone considering a YES vote because it will destroy any chance of UAL bringing back 51+ seat jets to mainline.

This is one the silliest things you have ever said. They are called negotiations not demands. If you think that you can walk into a negotiation and just tell the other side to go pound sand on all their issues, then you are delusional. If you think that the NMB will allow you to proceed in negotiations where you don't address any of their issues you are even more delusional.

Even in bankruptcy, both the Delta and Northwest MEC's extracted concessions from management. They had the entire weight of the court and the bankruptcy laws backing them up, yet they made concessions.

During the NWA strike in 1998, you ended up with an up contract but concessions were made. In C2K we had a massive up contract but concessions were made. Trying to paint this as some new development is to ignore the entire history of negotiations for decades.

Your last statement that gains in other sections of the contract are fully funded by concessions is just a flat out lie. You know this is a lie and yet you try to repeat as if it were a fact. The net gain for pilots is over $1 billion. That is net.

Well actually, you can. But the results aren't favorable. Look where it got APA and USAPA. :D

The only delusion is your continuation of lying about the process and the NMB. You haven't a clue of what you're talking about. Concessions have their place and always have when you're company is in trouble. When you're making record profits, concessions have no place. This used to be ALPA's history and is the main reason we're not working under 1930's conditions. The new ALPA of which you are a disciple, are believers that concessions are the new norm regardless of your company's finances. This TA is the worst example of it as all gains are financed by concessions in other areas.

While our respective unions handed over much greater concessions on our side for a massive NET loss.

It's an obvious matter of degree. In 1998, our finances were not good. We were still suffering badly from the LBO. Your C2K may have a few small concessions, but overall it was a huge NET gain. This TA is NET neutral.

The only lie is your perpetuation of this nonsense. Go argue with the executive leadership who are publicly stating that this TA fully funds the investment they are making in the employees. Go argue with our reps who have also called this contract cost neutral. But you'd have to take those reps off your ignore list to do that.

And speaking of lying, how about that huge whopper you told the other day that this TA provides for an additional 1,000 jobs at mainline. Did you know you've still not apologized for that lie?

Carl

If I can sum up how some YES voters are defending this concessionary contract:

• Delta wanted 82 seats at DCI, we held them to 76-seaters, and 70 more of them.
• Delta lets us convert our iffy 15% profit sharing into a solid 4/8.5/3/3% COLA.
• The Republic carve-out was actually read by the lawyers this time.
• 300 furloughs are mitigated by 300 early-outs, probably.
• This keeps us ahead of AA, UCon, and USAir.
• It will only suck for three years.
• We'll do better next time!

The only thing you missed is the part about the NMB saying they won't compare us to SWA, and they'll park us indefinitely if we don't accept management's first offer.

Other than that Boomer, you pretty much nailed it! :D

Carl

Boomer for the win. I didn't realize the negotiators are a bunch of line pilots. Ayfkm? Why aren't we hiring a bunch of high powered, professional negotiators? Alpa can obviously afford it.

Because line pilots (who've taken negotiations seminars) have the proven history of outsmarting management lawyers every time. Why would you want to change that success model? :rolleyes:

Carl

Here's the real irony in my eyes.

Outsourcing the negotiating committee itself would probably result in less flying outsourced.

In-house negotiating committee? More outsourced flying.

What the . . . :confused:

I just touched on the carrots. You brought the stick. :D

The 70 extra LARGE RJ's are a concession, plain and simple. It's regional GROWTH. I don't care about the reduction in 50 seaters. It is being viewed as a win, but it's a loss. In my opinion, this is allowing regionals to GROW. These are 90 seat aircraft, configured to 76 passengers. These are the aircraft truly replacing our mainline domestic route structure. A 50 seater configured with 50 seats can't replace a mainline flight. A 90 seater configured with 76 seats CAN.

We have concessions that are going to REDUCE the amount of Delta pilots. "Don't worry boys, with the early outs it will be even". Well guess what? The early outs happen AFTER the TA has already been voted on. Why would you even factor that in as a part of this equation?

Losing profit sharing - another concession. Things we gained during the JCBA are already being given back... that didn't take long. Didn't we go from 8 short calls to 6 on the JCBA? That was too greedy - lets give it back.

I am amazed at the guys on here - Bill, alfa, etc. pushing this TA. Even every union communication we receive that isn't from DTW is encouraging you to vote yes. I guess if they say it enough times - people will vote yes. Like papa johns... "better ingredients, better pizza" if you hear that enough times, you actually believe papa johns is using better ingredients and not the same stuff that comes out of a can that all the other pizza places use.

I'll give an A to the DALPA marketing department, but an F to the TA. I'd rather take my chances with a drawn out section 6, knowing that RA will want a deal done even if this gets voted down. They would be back to the table and within a month or two we would have some fixes to this TA and mgmt would go forward with the business plan of adding 717's.

Yup- this is almost as good as today's 90210 marathon. Current episode, Brandon is getting in trouble gambling, while David and Donna are getting closer. Dylans dad got blowed up last episode, btw.

With the violent swings this industry has, I'm suprised people are so hung up on this. We are taking money that isn't guaranteed, and turning it into money that is guaranteed in our pockets. Yes, I know Delta is "forecast" to make billions. But I trust accountants about as far as I can throw a Peterbuilt. Payrates are more guaranteed then profit sharing.

Subtract 200+ RJs, then add 70. I have a feeling most of those 50 seat routes will be retained, so 70 and 76 seaters will fill in the 50 seat route gaps. Then, add 88 717s, which is the next step up from a 76 seater. There is not a big stretch, like a 76 seater to an MD88. No, the next step up is a 717. It's that simple. Add a ratio to keep DCI in line, and you have a good TA, with a nice 20% raise in less than 3 years. Very simple actually.

Use math skills if you can please. 200+ 50 seaters leaving. 70 76 seaters coming. That means less outsourcing. Then ADD 88 717s. You can do it.

Looks like they got to you. Why do you have to take money and "turn it in to" other money? We are not in chapter 11. It's a concession. We should be getting the SAME profit sharing, with the same raises. The fact that you and others think it's necessary to exchange some items for others in this contract and make it "cost-neutral" is alarming.

You are way off. Management is reducing outsourcing overall, and tightening their own international scope with this TA. They may have wanted more 76 seaters, but with it they have to yield a ratio that downsizes DCI. The 88 717s will swoop in and take back regional flights that you are currently doing between larger city pairs. The profit sharing decrease might take place in 2014, not next year, and by 2015 we would be negotiating again. If the analysts are right and DL is wildly profitable, the profit sharing cutback may not happen at all, actually increasing to 20% from 15%. Will there be 300 furloughs? No one ever said that, but you. The 717s, that have to come or no additional CR9s, could add 1000 jobs, and the VP of flt Ops said hiring this Fall (you don't trust him....). DL would be way ahead if AA, US, and UA, who really haven't helped anyone in pattern bargaining. And 20% raise in 2 1/2 years is great. How has your own pay progressed? It's a great deal with better scope overall, less outsourcing, 717s, good pay. You're wrong.

I'm hung up on it because it was "used" to fund very meager pay increases which eventually put a couple choice categories "leading the industry*" in pay rates.


*leading the industry refers to topping 2012 pay rates in 2015.

Derision is the best you can do to a post that was given some thought by the poster. Bill you are getting bad. There are quite a few on here that don't see the TA the same way you do. We haven't had that OMG moment of epiphany that you have and by the way, it's our vote!

I get it that you need the $$, but please don't try to sell this TA as positive. There are some positives in it, but far too many give backs or ups to stomach anything but a no. Please stop the demeaning posts.

It is very simple. This TA will breathe life into a dying DCI model. It may reduce the total number of RJ's now, but DALPA has proved that a hard cap limit is for sale. We will be back at the table in only 2 1/2 years, and the company will be looking for more large RJ's. I'm okay with the pay. Scope was my number one concern going into this negotiation.

I've heard your argument that this TA tightens scope, and understand what your saying, so you don't need to say it again.

Bingo.

HARD CAP today= next round's notepads in small letters with the new, large amount that it is being replaced by stated as "HARD CAP."

I didn't invent the "300 fewer pilots" number. I could go back and find a dozen references.

Also, my pay has not progressed since 2003. I don't think you need to compare the TA pay rates to a regional FO's, even if we work for the same holdings company.

Other than that, I agree with your conclusions - assuming all your "coulds, mights, and ifs" come true.

Bill, I know you have read this TA very carefully. However, I believe you are reading between the lines and finding goodwill from management.

Delta and ALPA have tought me that a contract is not about coulds, mights, and ifs. Agree to disagree.

Carl, this contract is a huge net gain for pilots. No one ever said that it was not a huge gain for pilots. What some people assert is that Delta will either save money on not repairing 50 seaters or they will make more money with a better fleet so that the net gain for Delta pilots is offset by gains in other parts of the company. Neutral cost for the company is not equal to neutral cost to the pilots. If Delta got a billion dollar rebate from the government and gave it all to pilots, it would be cost neutral to Delta but a gain for pilots. Go ask your reps and they will tell you. No matter how many times you try to repeat a lie, it doesn't make it true.

I already proved how the TA provides for an additional 1,000 jobs, so I am not apologizing for telling the truth. 88 B-717's replacing 50 seaters is a net gain of 1,000 jobs for Delta pilots. This TA accelerates the loss of capacity in DCI and places that capacity back at mainline.

Ah nevermind. I'm just in an argumentive mood......

The key is that the profit sharing was reduced to fund pay rate increases which already undershot survey results by a significant margin.

About 2% of the pay raises, tell the whole story 80.

The 300 number is the number of projected jobs lost to the ALV plus 15 for reserves and the ALV going to 84 some months. There were however several other areas where we gained jobs such as counting vacation ect.. into when a reserve is full and basing full on the reserve guarantee instead of ALV. The net job loss with work rules will be around 175 jobs. I don't believe we needed to give those jobs up but its not 300 as some have posted. Posting that there will be 300 furloughs as a result of the TA is quite simply a lie and the poster knows that.

Look at the weekly transcripts from management. Have you ever seen management try to sell something so badly? I think they are selling this harder than alpa.

^^^^
What he said.

In your opinion, what did DALPA sell it for? Was it the block hour ratio? The B717's? The 450 DCI hull cap? Just curious.