NN 12-13 out today---GREAT READ
06-21-2012, 01:39 PM
#1
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
NN 12-13 out today---GREAT READ
June 21, 2012
12-13
Contract 2012 – Rumor, Innuendo and Misrepresentations
Since the publication of Negotiators’ Notepad 12-11 – Frequently Asked questions, we continue to read and hear inaccurate rumors and receive additional questions that have little or no basis in fact.
Please remember that the Delta Pilot Network (DPN) is staffed seven days per week during normal business hours. If the DPN volunteer cannot readily answer your question, he has access to a full array of subject matter experts who can. Your question will be answered, and it will be answered accurately. We strongly encourage you not to rely on internet posts and crew van gossip if you have questions you need answered before you cast an informed vote. You can reach the DPN Monday through Friday at 1-800-USA-ALPA. From 9am to 5pm ET over the weekend, you may call 1-866-239-0437 to speak with a DPN volunteer.
Rumor, Innuendo and Misrepresentations:
Q1 I’m suspicious as to why we were able to reach an agreement so quickly. We had to have left money on the table if management agreed to this deal so quickly, right?
A1 The short answer is that we were able to reach an agreement because an opportunity presented itself, and both parties were motivated to take advantage of the opportunity. The following is the first slide we put up during the recent round of road shows.
The Company has the opportunity to acquire what we now know to be 88 B-717 aircraft in order to upgauge its fleet. If the agreement is ratified, the end result of this upgauging will be a massive shift of flying to the mainline.
The opportunity will not last indefinitely, however. We believe we extracted significant value from management with this agreement and that the perception that money was “left on the table” is without merit.
Q2 Management achieved a lot of savings with this TA by not having to pay for 50-seat RJ flying that they don’t want. We squandered our leverage by making this contract cost neutral.
A2 As it pertains to the pilot group, this is anything but a cost neutral contract. In fact, the increased value over the life of the contract will be on the order of approximately one billion dollars.
If the agreement is ratified, Delta will save approximately $184 million in above normal run rate CRJ-200 engine maintenance costs. In addition, Delta will save approximately $289 million in DCI contract and CRJ-200 ownership costs. This represents a total net savings of $473 million over the life of the agreement. These are one time savings that don’t continue into the future unlike the increases in pilot costs in this TA, which continue to accrue.
The acquisition costs of the B-717 and 76-seat jets are not public, but at current market prices can be estimated at approximately $2 billion. The savings generated by management not having to pay for the 50-seat RJ flying that they don’t want is more than offset by the acquisition costs of the B-717 and the 76-seat jets.
Q3 The CEO of Republic Airlines was quoted as saying that the new Bombardier C series aircraft could “fit into a global alliance as (a low-cost carrier) component to a broader North American strategy for a SkyTeam or Star or oneworld." Is this true?
A3 That CEO’s theoretical proposed use of Bombardier C series aircraft is simply not allowed under the terms of the Delta PWA. These aircraft could be flown by Delta pilots for Delta Air Lines but they could not be operated as Delta Connection flights since the Bombardier C Series aircraft would not be a permitted aircraft type (76 seats and below and weight limitations) under the PWA. If these aircraft were flown by a DCI carrier but in service for another airline, the PWA would prohibit them from being placed on routes that compete with Delta mainline service or from causing mainline block hours to decrease.
Q4 Since the Q400s in the Horizon operation are excluded, doesn’t that open the door for Delta to get unlimited numbers of them?
A4 No. The Horizon Q400s are not DCI aircraft and are subject to the same code share restrictions as Alaska (AS) mainline flying. Delta does not receive all of the revenue nor pay the operating costs for these flights as they do under a DCI capacity purchase agreement. AS flights are pro-rate agreements where only the operator of a flight gets paid for the operated segment and the booking carrier gets a small “finder's fee.”
If Delta were to buy or lease Q400s for its own DCI operation, they would still be subject to all the existing Scope restrictions as well as the hard 450 aircraft cap, the ratio requirements and seat restrictions.
Q5 I heard we gave up green slips or at the very least, that they would be greatly reduced under this agreement. Is that true?
A5 No, it’s not. Green slip assignments have little to do with reserve pilots having filled up and more to do with there being no one on call and legal with the right number of days of availability.
Green slips also often result when the trip is short notice, less than 12 hours, with insufficient short call pilots available with the right number of days of availability. Nothing in the TA has changed the trip coverage sequence. In these cases, white slips will still be proffered first, then short call reserves would be used, and then green slips would be awarded. 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 or with a green slip.
Q6 Several years ago, the Delta pilots won a grievance against management’s practice of calling pilots while sick. Doesn’t this TA overturn the arbitration award in favor of management?
A6 Absolutely not, and the premise of the question is inaccurate. To answer this question, we contacted Capt. John Morgado, the then Contract Administration Committee chairman, who prosecuted the grievance. He provided us with this answer.
“The arbitration award did not prohibit the Company from contacting a pilot. In the award, commonly referred to as the ‘Harris Award’ or ‘Reliability Decision,’ the arbitrator stated ‘Having a base chief pilot talk to an individual pilot about anything involving a pilot’s job performance is clearly within the right of management.’ The award confirmed that management cannot impose a reliability policy that allows the discipline of a pilot for his use of sick leave. This TA actually further limits management’s ability to verify a pilot’s sick leave usage. This TA will end the Company’s sick leave monitoring program and stop the ‘routine’ calls from the chief pilot. It does not change the prohibition, established in the Harris Award, on management imposing a reliability policy that disciplines pilots for sick leave usage.
Current contract language allows management to verify sickness if the pilot is absent more than seven consecutive days “under normal conditions.” Under the TA, management may only require verification if the absence is 15 days or more.
Current contract language allows management to require verification of sickness if the pilot is absent less than seven consecutive days if the absence is not “under normal conditions.” However, “normal” is not defined. Under the TA, management can require verification for less than 15 consecutive days of sick leave only if they have a “good faith basis.” They cannot use the amount and frequency of sick leave usage to form that basis. Unlike “normal,” “good faith basis” is a much higher standard and further limits when management may require verification.
Under current contract language, management could require verification regardless of the amount of sick leave a pilot has used. Under the TA, other than the exceptions noted above, they must wait until the pilot uses 100 or more hours of unverified sick leave. Last year, over 85% of Delta pilots used less than 100 hours of sick leave. Of the remaining 15%, two-thirds went on disability. Remember too, that at the pilot’s option, he can initiate verification of any sick leave to stay below the 100-hour threshold.
Q7 I heard we gave up our Business Class seating for international deadheads. Is that true?
A7 No, that’s not true. This rumor probably started as an inaccurate assessment of the TA’s improvements for domestic deadheads. Under this TA, domestic coach seat assignments for deadheading pilots are made in the following order (for a duty period greater than 10 hours and deadhead of at least 3:45 block to block).
Exit Row (aisle seat, then window seat)
Any aisle seat
Any window seat
Middle seat exit row
Any seat
Q8 I wanted larger pay increases. You ignored the Contract Survey.
A8 The survey was not ignored. In any negotiation, there are gives and takes; that’s why it’s called negotiations. In his most recent Chairman’s Letter, Captain O’Malley wrote:
“. . . I freely admit that the agreement did not achieve all of our goals; negotiated agreements rarely if ever do. But when viewed in the aggregate, this TA represents a huge win for the Delta pilots, particularly in the areas of scope, sick leave, and reserve work rules. While pay rate increases were less than what many of us had hoped for, over the life of the agreement, those increases will place between $54,000 and $110,000 in the pockets of Delta pilots and their families (based on an 80-hour month) and tens of thousands more for those on reserve. And that money will begin to accumulate immediately rather than having us wait for some unknown amount at some undetermined point down the road.
We wholeheartedly concur. We openly admit that we did not achieve every goal laid out in the contract survey. The scope, sick leave, and reserve enhancements, however, provide us with improvements that are arguably the best in the industry, and we will achieve pay rate increase of almost 20% only 24 months beyond our current amendable date. Let’s make this perfectly clear: If we believed more were available, we’d have brought it to you in this agreement.
Q9 I’m satisfied with most of the agreement, but I’d like to see it “tweaked” in the area of ________. If we reject the agreement, we can make some quick tweaks and vote on the new agreement, right?
A9 We believe this agreement is a huge win for the Delta pilots and that it stands on its own merits. That is why we closed each of our recent Negotiators’ Notepads by writing:
Your Negotiating Committee believes that this is a significant agreement for the Delta pilots and our families. As such, we strongly endorse this agreement and recommend that when the voting window opens, you vote in favor of ratifying C2012.
The membership ratification process, however, provides the Delta pilots with the ultimate authority to decide whether to ratify or reject the agreement, and we respect that process. If the agreement is ratified, we will begin to see real and significant improvements on July 1. If, on the other hand, the agreement is rejected, it is our view that we will most likely revert to traditional Section 6 negotiations. We would expect the MEC to reconvene and for additional polling to take place prior to any additional direction being provided to the committee. Then, we would likely attempt to meet with the Company to attempt to reach a revised agreement at the earliest opportunity. But as the pilots who were at the table during these negotiations (which consisted of over 100 face-to-face meeting and over 300 proposal exchanges), if the agreement is rejected, it is our view that it is unlikely we will reach an acceptable agreement in the near term. We further believe that the leverage related to the scope changes (B-717s, block hour ratios, shift of block hours to mainline) may very well evaporate before we are able to reach a subsequent agreement. This is not meant as a scare tactic; it is simply the observation of the pilots who were at the negotiating table.
As part of the expedited negotiations, both parties agreed that if an agreement was not ratified, work to date would be non-precedential to subsequent negotiations. In other words, while we are free to seek changes in a subsequent agreement, the Company is also free to seek changes, and since regional jets configured with up to 82 seats was one of the Company’s very last table positions, we would expect them to revisit this issue in particular.
The bottom line though is that eventually, we will reach an agreement with management; it’s just a matter of when and what. In the absence of an agreement by March 31, 2013, the parties have agreed to jointly petition the National Mediation Board for mediation services.
Delta MEC Negotiating Committee
12-13
Contract 2012 – Rumor, Innuendo and Misrepresentations
Since the publication of Negotiators’ Notepad 12-11 – Frequently Asked questions, we continue to read and hear inaccurate rumors and receive additional questions that have little or no basis in fact.
Please remember that the Delta Pilot Network (DPN) is staffed seven days per week during normal business hours. If the DPN volunteer cannot readily answer your question, he has access to a full array of subject matter experts who can. Your question will be answered, and it will be answered accurately. We strongly encourage you not to rely on internet posts and crew van gossip if you have questions you need answered before you cast an informed vote. You can reach the DPN Monday through Friday at 1-800-USA-ALPA. From 9am to 5pm ET over the weekend, you may call 1-866-239-0437 to speak with a DPN volunteer.
Rumor, Innuendo and Misrepresentations:
Q1 I’m suspicious as to why we were able to reach an agreement so quickly. We had to have left money on the table if management agreed to this deal so quickly, right?
A1 The short answer is that we were able to reach an agreement because an opportunity presented itself, and both parties were motivated to take advantage of the opportunity. The following is the first slide we put up during the recent round of road shows.
The Company has the opportunity to acquire what we now know to be 88 B-717 aircraft in order to upgauge its fleet. If the agreement is ratified, the end result of this upgauging will be a massive shift of flying to the mainline.
The opportunity will not last indefinitely, however. We believe we extracted significant value from management with this agreement and that the perception that money was “left on the table” is without merit.
Q2 Management achieved a lot of savings with this TA by not having to pay for 50-seat RJ flying that they don’t want. We squandered our leverage by making this contract cost neutral.
A2 As it pertains to the pilot group, this is anything but a cost neutral contract. In fact, the increased value over the life of the contract will be on the order of approximately one billion dollars.
If the agreement is ratified, Delta will save approximately $184 million in above normal run rate CRJ-200 engine maintenance costs. In addition, Delta will save approximately $289 million in DCI contract and CRJ-200 ownership costs. This represents a total net savings of $473 million over the life of the agreement. These are one time savings that don’t continue into the future unlike the increases in pilot costs in this TA, which continue to accrue.
The acquisition costs of the B-717 and 76-seat jets are not public, but at current market prices can be estimated at approximately $2 billion. The savings generated by management not having to pay for the 50-seat RJ flying that they don’t want is more than offset by the acquisition costs of the B-717 and the 76-seat jets.
Q3 The CEO of Republic Airlines was quoted as saying that the new Bombardier C series aircraft could “fit into a global alliance as (a low-cost carrier) component to a broader North American strategy for a SkyTeam or Star or oneworld." Is this true?
A3 That CEO’s theoretical proposed use of Bombardier C series aircraft is simply not allowed under the terms of the Delta PWA. These aircraft could be flown by Delta pilots for Delta Air Lines but they could not be operated as Delta Connection flights since the Bombardier C Series aircraft would not be a permitted aircraft type (76 seats and below and weight limitations) under the PWA. If these aircraft were flown by a DCI carrier but in service for another airline, the PWA would prohibit them from being placed on routes that compete with Delta mainline service or from causing mainline block hours to decrease.
Q4 Since the Q400s in the Horizon operation are excluded, doesn’t that open the door for Delta to get unlimited numbers of them?
A4 No. The Horizon Q400s are not DCI aircraft and are subject to the same code share restrictions as Alaska (AS) mainline flying. Delta does not receive all of the revenue nor pay the operating costs for these flights as they do under a DCI capacity purchase agreement. AS flights are pro-rate agreements where only the operator of a flight gets paid for the operated segment and the booking carrier gets a small “finder's fee.”
If Delta were to buy or lease Q400s for its own DCI operation, they would still be subject to all the existing Scope restrictions as well as the hard 450 aircraft cap, the ratio requirements and seat restrictions.
Q5 I heard we gave up green slips or at the very least, that they would be greatly reduced under this agreement. Is that true?
A5 No, it’s not. Green slip assignments have little to do with reserve pilots having filled up and more to do with there being no one on call and legal with the right number of days of availability.
Green slips also often result when the trip is short notice, less than 12 hours, with insufficient short call pilots available with the right number of days of availability. Nothing in the TA has changed the trip coverage sequence. In these cases, white slips will still be proffered first, then short call reserves would be used, and then green slips would be awarded. 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 or with a green slip.
Q6 Several years ago, the Delta pilots won a grievance against management’s practice of calling pilots while sick. Doesn’t this TA overturn the arbitration award in favor of management?
A6 Absolutely not, and the premise of the question is inaccurate. To answer this question, we contacted Capt. John Morgado, the then Contract Administration Committee chairman, who prosecuted the grievance. He provided us with this answer.
“The arbitration award did not prohibit the Company from contacting a pilot. In the award, commonly referred to as the ‘Harris Award’ or ‘Reliability Decision,’ the arbitrator stated ‘Having a base chief pilot talk to an individual pilot about anything involving a pilot’s job performance is clearly within the right of management.’ The award confirmed that management cannot impose a reliability policy that allows the discipline of a pilot for his use of sick leave. This TA actually further limits management’s ability to verify a pilot’s sick leave usage. This TA will end the Company’s sick leave monitoring program and stop the ‘routine’ calls from the chief pilot. It does not change the prohibition, established in the Harris Award, on management imposing a reliability policy that disciplines pilots for sick leave usage.
Current contract language allows management to verify sickness if the pilot is absent more than seven consecutive days “under normal conditions.” Under the TA, management may only require verification if the absence is 15 days or more.
Current contract language allows management to require verification of sickness if the pilot is absent less than seven consecutive days if the absence is not “under normal conditions.” However, “normal” is not defined. Under the TA, management can require verification for less than 15 consecutive days of sick leave only if they have a “good faith basis.” They cannot use the amount and frequency of sick leave usage to form that basis. Unlike “normal,” “good faith basis” is a much higher standard and further limits when management may require verification.
Under current contract language, management could require verification regardless of the amount of sick leave a pilot has used. Under the TA, other than the exceptions noted above, they must wait until the pilot uses 100 or more hours of unverified sick leave. Last year, over 85% of Delta pilots used less than 100 hours of sick leave. Of the remaining 15%, two-thirds went on disability. Remember too, that at the pilot’s option, he can initiate verification of any sick leave to stay below the 100-hour threshold.
Q7 I heard we gave up our Business Class seating for international deadheads. Is that true?
A7 No, that’s not true. This rumor probably started as an inaccurate assessment of the TA’s improvements for domestic deadheads. Under this TA, domestic coach seat assignments for deadheading pilots are made in the following order (for a duty period greater than 10 hours and deadhead of at least 3:45 block to block).
Exit Row (aisle seat, then window seat)
Any aisle seat
Any window seat
Middle seat exit row
Any seat
Q8 I wanted larger pay increases. You ignored the Contract Survey.
A8 The survey was not ignored. In any negotiation, there are gives and takes; that’s why it’s called negotiations. In his most recent Chairman’s Letter, Captain O’Malley wrote:
“. . . I freely admit that the agreement did not achieve all of our goals; negotiated agreements rarely if ever do. But when viewed in the aggregate, this TA represents a huge win for the Delta pilots, particularly in the areas of scope, sick leave, and reserve work rules. While pay rate increases were less than what many of us had hoped for, over the life of the agreement, those increases will place between $54,000 and $110,000 in the pockets of Delta pilots and their families (based on an 80-hour month) and tens of thousands more for those on reserve. And that money will begin to accumulate immediately rather than having us wait for some unknown amount at some undetermined point down the road.
We wholeheartedly concur. We openly admit that we did not achieve every goal laid out in the contract survey. The scope, sick leave, and reserve enhancements, however, provide us with improvements that are arguably the best in the industry, and we will achieve pay rate increase of almost 20% only 24 months beyond our current amendable date. Let’s make this perfectly clear: If we believed more were available, we’d have brought it to you in this agreement.
Q9 I’m satisfied with most of the agreement, but I’d like to see it “tweaked” in the area of ________. If we reject the agreement, we can make some quick tweaks and vote on the new agreement, right?
A9 We believe this agreement is a huge win for the Delta pilots and that it stands on its own merits. That is why we closed each of our recent Negotiators’ Notepads by writing:
Your Negotiating Committee believes that this is a significant agreement for the Delta pilots and our families. As such, we strongly endorse this agreement and recommend that when the voting window opens, you vote in favor of ratifying C2012.
The membership ratification process, however, provides the Delta pilots with the ultimate authority to decide whether to ratify or reject the agreement, and we respect that process. If the agreement is ratified, we will begin to see real and significant improvements on July 1. If, on the other hand, the agreement is rejected, it is our view that we will most likely revert to traditional Section 6 negotiations. We would expect the MEC to reconvene and for additional polling to take place prior to any additional direction being provided to the committee. Then, we would likely attempt to meet with the Company to attempt to reach a revised agreement at the earliest opportunity. But as the pilots who were at the table during these negotiations (which consisted of over 100 face-to-face meeting and over 300 proposal exchanges), if the agreement is rejected, it is our view that it is unlikely we will reach an acceptable agreement in the near term. We further believe that the leverage related to the scope changes (B-717s, block hour ratios, shift of block hours to mainline) may very well evaporate before we are able to reach a subsequent agreement. This is not meant as a scare tactic; it is simply the observation of the pilots who were at the negotiating table.
As part of the expedited negotiations, both parties agreed that if an agreement was not ratified, work to date would be non-precedential to subsequent negotiations. In other words, while we are free to seek changes in a subsequent agreement, the Company is also free to seek changes, and since regional jets configured with up to 82 seats was one of the Company’s very last table positions, we would expect them to revisit this issue in particular.
The bottom line though is that eventually, we will reach an agreement with management; it’s just a matter of when and what. In the absence of an agreement by March 31, 2013, the parties have agreed to jointly petition the National Mediation Board for mediation services.
Delta MEC Negotiating Committee
06-21-2012, 02:55 PM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,838
The polling must be either negative or inside the margin of error. If it was solidly positive, there would be no point. %50 + 1 is the goal.
If this agreement really did stand on its own merits, you wouldn't need countless FAQs and Q&A documents. It would speak for itself.
Nu
If this agreement really did stand on its own merits, you wouldn't need countless FAQs and Q&A documents. It would speak for itself.
Nu
06-21-2012, 03:15 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: DAL FO
Posts: 2,142
Originally Posted by NuGuy
The polling must be either negative or inside the margin of error. If it was solidly positive, there would be no point. %50 + 1 is the goal.
If this agreement really did stand on its own merits, you wouldn't need countless FAQs and Q&A documents. It would speak for itself.
Nu
If this agreement really did stand on its own merits, you wouldn't need countless FAQs and Q&A documents. It would speak for itself.
Nu
Would you prefer the NC and MEC didn't communicate with us? IMO they can pump out all the info they want, as long as it's completely factual.
Do you question the validity of any of the info they put out? What's wrong with handing out accurate information that clears up many of the items floating around the rumor mill? Which parts do you think are incorrect?
If you can show me what they wrote that was incorrect I'd like to know (seriously).
06-21-2012, 03:36 PM
#4
On Reserve
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: 73N/FO
Posts: 13
Nu, you seem to be assuming a lot here. Why so pessimistic all the time? It seems like the ALPA haters on this thread twist the communication coming from the union. If we didn't get any communication on this contract then you would say...."See, they are so inept and ashamed of the product they can't even root for their own negotiators." Too much communication and you say..."This contract should sell itself." they can't win for lose with you guys. I wish you guys would just be honest and say NOTHING this union produces is good enough. I'm beginning to believe that about so many on this board. I think it is disingenuous to argue the positives or negatives of a contract that you wouldn't vote for even if there were 30% day one raises and no 76 seat increases.
I am no ALPA lover. In my short time at Delta ('07) I have seen good and bad. I certainly was not here for the furloughs and the pay cuts. I am humble enough to admit I don't know what it must be like to get escorted out of the airport by your employer as they increase DCI flying. It's infuriating enough to me and I wasn't even here when all that happened. ALPA was at the helm for all of that. But a reasonable look at our CURRENT situation, imho, points toward trusting, and I will say it again, trusting in the negotiators. This "black helicopter" crowd is outside reality if they think the NC is getting their strings pulled by national or the MEC. I mean no insult here even though it may come across that way.
It just becomes more evident as I surf these threads that there are the bunker mentality types here who just will not believe a word coming from ALPA. Call me naive, a relative newcomer, but I am going to trust the people we elected, who in turn elected the NC. I believe this is a flawed contract. I believe we deserve more. But I believe what the negotiators are saying here. Why wouldn't I believe them? Just because there are some on here that think their words are crafted by LM? Hogwash. Vote for it, stop fighting, and get 15% more in 3 years......out.
I am no ALPA lover. In my short time at Delta ('07) I have seen good and bad. I certainly was not here for the furloughs and the pay cuts. I am humble enough to admit I don't know what it must be like to get escorted out of the airport by your employer as they increase DCI flying. It's infuriating enough to me and I wasn't even here when all that happened. ALPA was at the helm for all of that. But a reasonable look at our CURRENT situation, imho, points toward trusting, and I will say it again, trusting in the negotiators. This "black helicopter" crowd is outside reality if they think the NC is getting their strings pulled by national or the MEC. I mean no insult here even though it may come across that way.
It just becomes more evident as I surf these threads that there are the bunker mentality types here who just will not believe a word coming from ALPA. Call me naive, a relative newcomer, but I am going to trust the people we elected, who in turn elected the NC. I believe this is a flawed contract. I believe we deserve more. But I believe what the negotiators are saying here. Why wouldn't I believe them? Just because there are some on here that think their words are crafted by LM? Hogwash. Vote for it, stop fighting, and get 15% more in 3 years......out.
06-21-2012, 03:41 PM
#5
On Reserve
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: 73N/FO
Posts: 13
I should've said 15% or more. The point is patience. Before we know it we will be on top. Just relax and watch it happen within 3 years. Pulling a Veruca Salt (willy wonka) imho is not smart.
06-21-2012, 03:44 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 762
Here is a GREAT READ. Posted on another forum.
Up to now we have been arguing the merits of a YES or NO vote to the TA.
The arguments for the TA were mostly centering around a "Bird-in-the-Hand" premise, being that one shouldn't exchange an unknown for a known. This premise was supported by beliefs that those closest to the deal knew the most, a trust issue. Also there have been focus on the mathematical model of the time value of money. These and possibly the larger narrow body footprint are the basic reasons for voting YES.
These are logical arguments, but I propose they are in the micro view. Not to diminish the importance of any kind of "raise", or a diminishing 50 seat footprint, but I will illustrate, now with the data I have received from a company insider, how these are "micro view conditions" that are overshadowed, and overpowered by more important and more forceful arguments.
Pilots move to safety. Industrial psychologists know this. I am going to show you where the real safety is. Because I believe real safety is in the most truthful information, and the most honest assessments, I implore you, each of you, for your family, for your profession, your company, to listen carefully and make your decision based upon sound, sober judgement, without emotion or pretense.
The details are:
1. The company has Capacity Purchase Agreements (CPA) with "contract carriers".
These agreements extend well past 2020.
2. Delta has to honor these agreements as they are contractual.
3. Delta has to absorb the costs of these contracts, and if the aircraft operating or maintenance costs increase, Delta has to absorb these costs in addition.
4. The 50 seat aircraft are operating at a loss.
5. The 50 seat aircraft are coming up for mandatory engine maintenance/replacement costs very soon.
6. The costs to re-engine these 50 seat aircraft is between 2-2 1/2 BILLION dollars over the next 3 to 4 years. Unavoidable costs. (there are statements of 1billion on this web, those are wrong. The company has stated to me, through a person who knows, that the actual cost is 2-2 1/2 BILLION)
7. The company can replace these aircraft and avoid the 2-2 1/2 BILLION by letting the "contract carriers" fly 76 seat aircraft. These "contract carriers" would then allow the CPA agreements to be unhinged. The total deal is a deal between the Canadair and the "contract carriers", and Delta.
8. The 50 seat -76 seat agreement gives the company a one time savings of the hundreds of millions of dollars.
9. Canadair only has 11 76 seat aircraft to build and it closes down the line. There is a time crunch on Delta to get this deal done before that line is closed. This was a Canadair corporate decision.
10. The profit sharing cost savings to the company (going from 15% to 10%) was equal to a 2 1/2% pay "raise".
11. Efficiencies included in the contract were equal to a 3 1/2% pay "raise".
(are you seeing how Vice President of Labor Relations and Human Resources Mike Campbell might have been being very conservative when he said the pilot TA was cost neutral?)
12. AFTER re-engining the 50 seat aircraft, they still would operate at a revenue loss.
I can state emphatically that if the TA passes, we lose ALL LEVERAGE.
Points to be made:
For those of you who think we are hurting the company by voting NO.
The company used absolutely every ounce of leverage it has in Bankruptcy court to cut our contracts to the bone. This was after promising to "Do it once and do it right." Trust was given and then abused. This was a purely business decision by our management team. Moak did the best he could do, I presume, but was up against a management team that was willing to use every facet of coercion to diminish our careers under a paper Bankruptcy. It wasn't personal. It was a balance sheet decision leaving emotion and ramifications out of it.
If we doubled our contract to 8-17-6-6, we are still saving the company money by agreeing to this 8-17-6-6 agreement. Be assured you are still helping the company in this example. Remember the 400 million Tim O'Malley has cited is cost neutral to the company, there's 2-2 1/2 BILLION and we really don't know what the final costing of the "hundreds of millions" for the one time savings is.
Do not worry. A 8-17-6-6 is getting the company out of a bind they put their own selves in, we has nothing to do with that awful decision. We are neither responsible, nor required to help management for their erroneous decisions. These are the problems of a management with a lack of foresight. We can see this in how they deal with us also. But the point is that we only help them because we are going to be with this company for decades, they may be gone next year, and it is in our interest to help the company dispose of their bad business decisions. But in doing so, we will make the same business-only decisions in regard to what we get out of this agreement. It will cost them, not dearly, but fairly. This is the attitude of a professional, and a sober observer of the facts. I implore you who faithfully serve the company to reject this TA so as to make this a win/win for management and for the professional pilot.
For those of you who think a "Bird-in-the-Hand" should be the only factor.
A "Bird-in-the-Hand" premise is based upon grabbing and holding known values, contrasting with holding values that are unknown and estimated.
We know we have 4-8.5-3-3. We know 3 1/2 are efficiencies and 2 1/2 are profit sharing. We know that after real estate and automobiles are taken out of the government inflation numbers our 2012 inflation rate is amounting to an annual 8.1%. We also know that the Fed has increased the money supply at historically unprecedented levels. (portends inflation)
So lets do the math:
4-8.5-3-3
First, focus on 8.5%. Let's take out the known company savings, which could also be classified as concessions. This is 3 1/2% for efficiencies and 2 1/2% for profit sharing. This is 6%.
8.5%-6%=2.5%
now our agreement is this:
4%-2.5%-3%-3%
This is hardly a good agreement when the company is losing money. It certainly is way under real inflation. Considering leverage, the financial state of the company, and the good-will sacrifices we have made, this is not representative of reality.
But we are talking about "Bird-in-the-Hand".
The "Bird-in-the-Hand" is the company under our leverage. That is the "Bird-in-the-Hand" we want to focus upon. This "Bird-in-the-Hand" leverage goes away, with any chance of real gains, the second this TA passes muster. Vanished. Three and one half more years under draconian wages and complaining pilots. This is after 7 1/2 years since the first per-bankruptcy "Do it once, do it right" promise. By the way, where are they now? Gone, just like this management team will likely be in a few short years.
The real "Bird-in-the-Hand" is the leverage we hold over the company this very day. Today you can make a decision that tells management that they need to balance the cost savings more fairly. If they will not do it out of good moral principles, we will do so out of good moral principles and the power, thank God, we have been given by their relying too heavily of 50 seat contract flying of our passengers.
The "Bird-in-the-Hand" is a downed TA. The "Bird-in-the-Hand" is the current leverage we have this very day.
I was wondering why I heard over a year and a half ago, several times through Line Check Airman, that RA wanted to get an early agreement for us, unlike the other carriers with bad relations. Many thought he was being paternal and gracious. Now we know it was all about covering management mistakes, burdensome costs on an over-reliance on 50 seat aircraft, and we were the ones that he wanted to carry the water. Shame on him.
For those of you who said it the TA did not pass the "smell test"
All I can say is thank you for the guts to say what you thought was right for your professional brothers and sisters, without pandering to pressure. Continue with facts and reasoned thinking.
What to do now?
First and foremost is to look at the facts and make a decision. Definitely vote. Make your voice heard. I still run into busy family guys and girls who still haven't seen the TA! I ran into an old friend yesterday! That's June 5th!
So don't assume everyone knows. One guy said. "18% over 3 1/2 years! I'm voting YES!". We can laugh or pity those who are not acquainted with the facts, but they affect your career and mine! Engage in conversations in a congenial and calm manner. Present the facts, the arguments are overwhelming. ''
A key point to all of this discussion is that the leverage is a one time event.
As far as who does the duties after a failed TA? This is a tough one. For me I think every NC member and MEC member acted in good faith. I believe Tim O'Malley is a hard working, honest and dedicated leader. But I also believe that there have been egregious errors in the assessment of the TA landscape, the knowledge of the intentions and Achilles's heel of management's predicament, and egregious errors in the proper representative character of the pilots-especially in light of the effort of the contract survey and it's being apparently discarded by the leadership, in principle, the rates.
There is not one person who says the rates are GOOD. Not one. Even Tim O'Malley openly admits this.
With all this leverage. The company's financial state. The pricing power and new revenue streams and the moral obligation to repay past sacrifices, with "Bird-in-the-Hand" safety, why would anyone vote YES to this TA?
Only the most uninformed and reckless character would.
Up to now we have been arguing the merits of a YES or NO vote to the TA.
The arguments for the TA were mostly centering around a "Bird-in-the-Hand" premise, being that one shouldn't exchange an unknown for a known. This premise was supported by beliefs that those closest to the deal knew the most, a trust issue. Also there have been focus on the mathematical model of the time value of money. These and possibly the larger narrow body footprint are the basic reasons for voting YES.
These are logical arguments, but I propose they are in the micro view. Not to diminish the importance of any kind of "raise", or a diminishing 50 seat footprint, but I will illustrate, now with the data I have received from a company insider, how these are "micro view conditions" that are overshadowed, and overpowered by more important and more forceful arguments.
Pilots move to safety. Industrial psychologists know this. I am going to show you where the real safety is. Because I believe real safety is in the most truthful information, and the most honest assessments, I implore you, each of you, for your family, for your profession, your company, to listen carefully and make your decision based upon sound, sober judgement, without emotion or pretense.
The details are:
1. The company has Capacity Purchase Agreements (CPA) with "contract carriers".
These agreements extend well past 2020.
2. Delta has to honor these agreements as they are contractual.
3. Delta has to absorb the costs of these contracts, and if the aircraft operating or maintenance costs increase, Delta has to absorb these costs in addition.
4. The 50 seat aircraft are operating at a loss.
5. The 50 seat aircraft are coming up for mandatory engine maintenance/replacement costs very soon.
6. The costs to re-engine these 50 seat aircraft is between 2-2 1/2 BILLION dollars over the next 3 to 4 years. Unavoidable costs. (there are statements of 1billion on this web, those are wrong. The company has stated to me, through a person who knows, that the actual cost is 2-2 1/2 BILLION)
7. The company can replace these aircraft and avoid the 2-2 1/2 BILLION by letting the "contract carriers" fly 76 seat aircraft. These "contract carriers" would then allow the CPA agreements to be unhinged. The total deal is a deal between the Canadair and the "contract carriers", and Delta.
8. The 50 seat -76 seat agreement gives the company a one time savings of the hundreds of millions of dollars.
9. Canadair only has 11 76 seat aircraft to build and it closes down the line. There is a time crunch on Delta to get this deal done before that line is closed. This was a Canadair corporate decision.
10. The profit sharing cost savings to the company (going from 15% to 10%) was equal to a 2 1/2% pay "raise".
11. Efficiencies included in the contract were equal to a 3 1/2% pay "raise".
(are you seeing how Vice President of Labor Relations and Human Resources Mike Campbell might have been being very conservative when he said the pilot TA was cost neutral?)
12. AFTER re-engining the 50 seat aircraft, they still would operate at a revenue loss.
I can state emphatically that if the TA passes, we lose ALL LEVERAGE.
Points to be made:
For those of you who think we are hurting the company by voting NO.
The company used absolutely every ounce of leverage it has in Bankruptcy court to cut our contracts to the bone. This was after promising to "Do it once and do it right." Trust was given and then abused. This was a purely business decision by our management team. Moak did the best he could do, I presume, but was up against a management team that was willing to use every facet of coercion to diminish our careers under a paper Bankruptcy. It wasn't personal. It was a balance sheet decision leaving emotion and ramifications out of it.
If we doubled our contract to 8-17-6-6, we are still saving the company money by agreeing to this 8-17-6-6 agreement. Be assured you are still helping the company in this example. Remember the 400 million Tim O'Malley has cited is cost neutral to the company, there's 2-2 1/2 BILLION and we really don't know what the final costing of the "hundreds of millions" for the one time savings is.
Do not worry. A 8-17-6-6 is getting the company out of a bind they put their own selves in, we has nothing to do with that awful decision. We are neither responsible, nor required to help management for their erroneous decisions. These are the problems of a management with a lack of foresight. We can see this in how they deal with us also. But the point is that we only help them because we are going to be with this company for decades, they may be gone next year, and it is in our interest to help the company dispose of their bad business decisions. But in doing so, we will make the same business-only decisions in regard to what we get out of this agreement. It will cost them, not dearly, but fairly. This is the attitude of a professional, and a sober observer of the facts. I implore you who faithfully serve the company to reject this TA so as to make this a win/win for management and for the professional pilot.
For those of you who think a "Bird-in-the-Hand" should be the only factor.
A "Bird-in-the-Hand" premise is based upon grabbing and holding known values, contrasting with holding values that are unknown and estimated.
We know we have 4-8.5-3-3. We know 3 1/2 are efficiencies and 2 1/2 are profit sharing. We know that after real estate and automobiles are taken out of the government inflation numbers our 2012 inflation rate is amounting to an annual 8.1%. We also know that the Fed has increased the money supply at historically unprecedented levels. (portends inflation)
So lets do the math:
4-8.5-3-3
First, focus on 8.5%. Let's take out the known company savings, which could also be classified as concessions. This is 3 1/2% for efficiencies and 2 1/2% for profit sharing. This is 6%.
8.5%-6%=2.5%
now our agreement is this:
4%-2.5%-3%-3%
This is hardly a good agreement when the company is losing money. It certainly is way under real inflation. Considering leverage, the financial state of the company, and the good-will sacrifices we have made, this is not representative of reality.
But we are talking about "Bird-in-the-Hand".
The "Bird-in-the-Hand" is the company under our leverage. That is the "Bird-in-the-Hand" we want to focus upon. This "Bird-in-the-Hand" leverage goes away, with any chance of real gains, the second this TA passes muster. Vanished. Three and one half more years under draconian wages and complaining pilots. This is after 7 1/2 years since the first per-bankruptcy "Do it once, do it right" promise. By the way, where are they now? Gone, just like this management team will likely be in a few short years.
The real "Bird-in-the-Hand" is the leverage we hold over the company this very day. Today you can make a decision that tells management that they need to balance the cost savings more fairly. If they will not do it out of good moral principles, we will do so out of good moral principles and the power, thank God, we have been given by their relying too heavily of 50 seat contract flying of our passengers.
The "Bird-in-the-Hand" is a downed TA. The "Bird-in-the-Hand" is the current leverage we have this very day.
I was wondering why I heard over a year and a half ago, several times through Line Check Airman, that RA wanted to get an early agreement for us, unlike the other carriers with bad relations. Many thought he was being paternal and gracious. Now we know it was all about covering management mistakes, burdensome costs on an over-reliance on 50 seat aircraft, and we were the ones that he wanted to carry the water. Shame on him.
For those of you who said it the TA did not pass the "smell test"
All I can say is thank you for the guts to say what you thought was right for your professional brothers and sisters, without pandering to pressure. Continue with facts and reasoned thinking.
What to do now?
First and foremost is to look at the facts and make a decision. Definitely vote. Make your voice heard. I still run into busy family guys and girls who still haven't seen the TA! I ran into an old friend yesterday! That's June 5th!
So don't assume everyone knows. One guy said. "18% over 3 1/2 years! I'm voting YES!". We can laugh or pity those who are not acquainted with the facts, but they affect your career and mine! Engage in conversations in a congenial and calm manner. Present the facts, the arguments are overwhelming. ''
A key point to all of this discussion is that the leverage is a one time event.
As far as who does the duties after a failed TA? This is a tough one. For me I think every NC member and MEC member acted in good faith. I believe Tim O'Malley is a hard working, honest and dedicated leader. But I also believe that there have been egregious errors in the assessment of the TA landscape, the knowledge of the intentions and Achilles's heel of management's predicament, and egregious errors in the proper representative character of the pilots-especially in light of the effort of the contract survey and it's being apparently discarded by the leadership, in principle, the rates.
There is not one person who says the rates are GOOD. Not one. Even Tim O'Malley openly admits this.
With all this leverage. The company's financial state. The pricing power and new revenue streams and the moral obligation to repay past sacrifices, with "Bird-in-the-Hand" safety, why would anyone vote YES to this TA?
Only the most uninformed and reckless character would.
Last edited by Express pilot; 06-21-2012 at 04:17 PM.
06-21-2012, 03:51 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: 737n/FO
Posts: 667
Originally Posted by LeineLodge
It wouldn't be necessary if there wasn't an incredible amount of bad info floating around. Some of the wacky questions that are based on incorrect forum info were covered to allow guys to make informed decisions based on real information.
Would you prefer the NC and MEC didn't communicate with us? IMO they can pump out all the info they want, as long as it's completely factual.
Do you question the validity of any of the info they put out? What's wrong with handing out accurate information that clears up many of the items floating around the rumor mill? Which parts do you think are incorrect?
If you can show me what they wrote that was incorrect I'd like to know (seriously).
Would you prefer the NC and MEC didn't communicate with us? IMO they can pump out all the info they want, as long as it's completely factual.
Do you question the validity of any of the info they put out? What's wrong with handing out accurate information that clears up many of the items floating around the rumor mill? Which parts do you think are incorrect?
If you can show me what they wrote that was incorrect I'd like to know (seriously).
Some other things:
1. Did we have to give something up to fund the early retirement program of 200-300 guys that were scheduled to leave in the next one-two years anyway?
2. How about this profit sharing for pay raises aspect. How much of the pay raise was exchanged for profit sharing (so therefore, how much of the pay raise remaining is a straight pay raise). I have speculated (since I don't have a real answer) that given DALs projected profit (yes, I know we don't know what the profit will be in 2013/14/15) what did we give up? I believe we gave up 2-3%/year which makes the raises 6.5/1/1 - doesn't look so good now>
And a whole bunch of other issues that have led to rampant speculation because there is NO discussion (other than a few LEC council member letters) of the downsides of this contract.
Last edited by DAL73n; 06-21-2012 at 03:52 PM. Reason: additional content
06-21-2012, 03:59 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,357
Originally Posted by DAL73n
Actually, while there is actually nothing factually incorrect by anything put out by the union, my problem is the absolute overselling of the positive aspects of this TA and the dismissive nature of the negative aspects of this TA (and I don't believe anyone believes this is a totally positive TA). I would have preferred a more balanced set of NNPs describing the upsides of the positive aspects and the downsides of the negative aspects of the TA(is it 300 lost jobs due to work rule changes - with all of our costing experts we ought to have a better idea of this.)
Some other things:
1. Did we have to give something up to fund the early retirement program of 200-300 guys that were scheduled to leave in the next one-two years anyway?
2. How about this profit sharing for pay raises aspect. How much of the pay raise was exchanged for profit sharing (so therefore, how much of the pay raise remaining is a straight pay raise). I have speculated (since I don't have a real answer) that given DALs projected profit (yes, I know we don't know what the profit will be in 2013/14/15) what did we give up? I believe we gave up 2-3%/year which makes the raises 6.5/1/1 - doesn't look so good now>
And a whole bunch of other issues that have led to rampant speculation because there is NO discussion (other than a few LEC council member letters) of the downsides of this contract.
Some other things:
1. Did we have to give something up to fund the early retirement program of 200-300 guys that were scheduled to leave in the next one-two years anyway?
2. How about this profit sharing for pay raises aspect. How much of the pay raise was exchanged for profit sharing (so therefore, how much of the pay raise remaining is a straight pay raise). I have speculated (since I don't have a real answer) that given DALs projected profit (yes, I know we don't know what the profit will be in 2013/14/15) what did we give up? I believe we gave up 2-3%/year which makes the raises 6.5/1/1 - doesn't look so good now>
And a whole bunch of other issues that have led to rampant speculation because there is NO discussion (other than a few LEC council member letters) of the downsides of this contract.
06-21-2012, 04:18 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,838
This reads like "How to set low goals, fail to achieve them, then make excuses"
If you set high goals and didn't make the cut, man up and take your licks.
This whole missive is "well, we really weren't trying to do that anyway". Like that Mary Gallgher skit from SNL...try to do a somersault, fall into a bunch of chairs, wreck the stage, show the world your underpants, then claim "Superstar".
Blech...
Nu
If you set high goals and didn't make the cut, man up and take your licks.
This whole missive is "well, we really weren't trying to do that anyway". Like that Mary Gallgher skit from SNL...try to do a somersault, fall into a bunch of chairs, wreck the stage, show the world your underpants, then claim "Superstar".
Blech...
Nu
06-21-2012, 04:28 PM
#10
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2012
Position: DAL
Posts: 623
Hilarious, DALPA can't even give straight answers to its own FAQs.
Lumberg, my man...you ooze the foul stench of desperation. Do you have a shower in your office up on the 4th floor or in the CPO? Please use it.
Lumberg, my man...you ooze the foul stench of desperation. Do you have a shower in your office up on the 4th floor or in the CPO? Please use it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
