Specifics, please....

#1 is Sick leave--It is purely for staffing and to reduce OVERALL sick usage. SL abuse is total BS and a ruse. They will come back for more next time. Bet on it!
--OE trip pulls. Company should be required to pull the "Q" trips from open time first.
--Virtual Basing-Extremely nebulous concept. What are we agreeing to? Why does the company want it? It will cost jobs.
--Fitness Review Board-See Southwest's no questions asked fatigue policy. We are professionals. Treat us as such.
Now, for what is NOT in the TA...
--Vacation and training pay inadequate
--Night and Holiday pay
--Retirement for anyone over 40, woefully inadequate
--We've been bent over regarding Deadheading. Where's the fix? See UAL
--Crew meals? nope

I wouldn't need to see all of the above items in the TA, but a few QOL nuggets would be nice. All of the "nuggets" seem to be going to the company. I just don't see too much overall value for the pilot group in the TA besides the pay rates. The belief that this is the best we will get is untrue. Why don't we actually push back? Let's give self-help a chance. Why is everyone here afraid of a fight? We have essentially given mgt concessions in trade for what is now industry standard pay rates. That is unacceptable, we should be aiming to RAISE the bar!

SCOPE. This TA makes us the minority producer in the AF/KLM JV. JVs are the future of Delta, the continual rolling back of our flying and putting the company in compliance for violations sets a dangerous precedent and has the potential to be the RJ debacle all over again. A block hour floor set in 2016 will be useless without growth adjustability that keeps our international flying growing in line with our JV partners.

Delta brand flying is the only flying we get to do. The more we give away the less we have. Once given I don't see it coming back. We are going to be a minority operator within our own brand, given time. 1E9 will be used eventually.

The cumulative concesions during record profits also.

Still undecided.

JV Scope and Sick Leave

[QUOTE=roadrunner65;2229436]
--Retirement for anyone over 40, woefully inadequate
/QUOTE]


New guy here, so please educate me (read: I know this is a touchy subject for those that lost everything, and I respect that more than you know, but I would like to understand a little more).

What would it take to make retirement adequate? 16% in your OWN 401K that can't be touched by anyone other than you is embarrassingly good imho. When compared with every other private industry, this is unheard of as far as I can tell. The most I've heard from my wife and friends is up to 5% matching...

For the average $200k/yr pilot, $32k is pretty legit to stash away. Combine that with personal savings and PS, and even guys on 1st and 2nd yr pay are hitting our $53k/yr limit.

How much is required to make you a yes voter? A DB will never return--you old guys have taught us newbies that since day one. We learned from the past and want our finically security to be controlled by us.

Please answer--and educate. Not trying to start a flame war, but I'm still new and have blinders on. I'm still Danny Delta! I feel pretty amazed that my employer will go WAY above other professions in their 401k contributions. Thanks!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1 - INTL scope. The setup is a disaster. If it were a % of EASKs AND global block hours it'd be okay. Since it is an OR right now we can rely on 100% of our growth being joint venture partners/code shares since we are already above the block hour limit.
WE WILL NOT HAVE TO SHARE IN ANY GROWTH

2 - Sick leave. The language has nothing to do with stopping abusers. They are only trying to reduce the sick use numbers by I believe 2%. I've had over a decade of not going close to 100 hrs, but the one year I have I can see how people are up in arms about this. The self verification being eliminated is a no go for me for now on.

3 - QOL vs. productivity. I don't see how this contract gets me any more time off. I would have liked rigs a bit higher, better RSV rules, etc... increasing VAC was great, but not enough value in it in my opinion.

4 - Higher ALV window. Allows lower amount of staffing for summer months (reducing staffing for the year) This is about job elimination.


I honestly care about time home #1. And I believe our union should be protecting jobs. The higher ALV window, ridiculous sick leave, and
intl scope are all about eliminating jobs/pilot positions. We already have such a low percentage of large widebodies that many of us will never hit that top scale.

Not yet mentioned above: the gutting of 3.B.4.

The change to the language of 3.B.4 (our "me too" clause) will effectively remove it from ever applying. That is a significant piece of leverage we have against protracted negotiations; the current language is one reason the company needs to get this contract done sooner rather than later, before the other employee groups start wondering where their annual pay raise is. It is a slow-burn, no doubt, but absolutely important to have. We should have been expanding it like the UAL bubbas did, not neutering it.

I agree. Gutting 3.B.4 to me is just about cutting out leverage. It only applies when our hourly rates are below average anyway. It seems they are cutting it out now so they can force us to give up some profit sharing to get to industry average rates in the future. This is them thinking ahead.

This is probably the one item I am really not happy about.

I agree about the 3.B.4 - it is now pretty much worthless, but playing Devils advocate I will pose the following question:

To a man almost every single No voter insists industry standard pay rates are a given. If this is true why do we need 3.B.4?

Scoop

Simple:

• If/when the company elects to drag its feet during Section 6 (this or any other), they will feel additional pressure regarding the non-contract DL employees: do they give them raises to keep them happy (thus giving us a raise, while they're trying to hold our feet to the fire)? Or, do they risk unhappy work groups across the operation in order to withhold raises from us? Sooner or later, they have to give those raises, which (in this scenario) would trend our pay up toward the industry norm.
• Between negotiations, if there are significant gains made at other properties, the same non-contract raises will keep us moving in the right direction. Say we'd signed TA1 into being <*shudder*>.... The "new normal" being way above us, any raise to the non-cons would generate a raise for us, despite having just signed a 3.5 year contract.
• At all times, it can provide incremental pay bumps (we saw two of them last year). This is an unquestionable goodness to have--it can only help us. Why on earth would we want to give it up??

Happy to have a lob for a change!