65% of DAL pilots would disagree with you.

 

They are to be sure...they just aren't the big ones and subsequently aren't large players in the political arena that is domestic US market share.

 

A call for repeal of the RLA from the airline labor groups? This is what Alpa Pac should be using some of that $ for.

 

I highly doubt all 65% of the DAL pilots that voted "no" think it was a concessionary contract. I am pretty confident at least one or two voters thought it was just not enough gains to vote for it.

I will repeat myself again. A concessionary contract and a contract that does not provide enough gains are two totally different things.

 

It was concessionary in the work rule department. No debating that.

 

It was concessionary in the work rule department. No debating that.

Please enlighten us about this.

I love the "non" vote. To me it just seemed a bit too convenient and cozy for such an easy tentative agreement. But I have no idea what was in the non contract offer.

 

What I want is a deal that is a forward move, not a lateral move when most of the airlines are reporting record profits. Pay scales are very much a secondary consideration for me. Work rules, job security, and retirement are primary concerns for me. I look at a contract in its totality. I completely understand that this is a negotiation and we don't just get to demand what we want. Everything has a cost to it (for both parties).

First, the Delta deal...
65% of their pilots voted no. Thank God!!! They got decent, not great pay scales and a 1% increase in their DC plan (woo hoo). The cost was a haircut on profit sharing, JV language that was a serious threat to their career progression and job security, and a draconian sick policy. I viewed this deal as a loss of ground, not an overall gain.

Second, the FedEx deal...
The only thing that I can see that is really not acceptable is their retirement proposal. No changes to the "A" fund which means that because of adjustments for inflation means that what they get upon their retirement will not have that much buying power (especially for pilots getting hired now and retiring in 20-30 years). A low (I think about 9%) B fund. Industry standard is 16%.

Third the SWA deal...
Huge cave in scope! They not only let the camel nose into the tent, they let the whole camel in the tent with scope. Not only that, but they have a proposal of a 10% MATCH for their retirement. Industry standard is a DC plan with a 16% contribution.

 

I am a bit confused by this. Who would SWA code-share or partner with to take advantage of the scope cave? SWA is both a regional and a big airline. Not understanding why SWA management would want to farm out flying to cheaper labor when SW pilots are already so efficient and productive.

 

There is language in their current TA that they would provide code share feed for larger foreign carriers. I would argue that if they want to make money on that flying, they should do the flying.

 

I see. But they can't do the flying cuz they only have guppies. I guess if they want to provide the feed for the lunar shuttle service to the dark side of the moon then good for them.