Carl Spackler

If you would lower your neurosis long enough to re-read:

Notice how the premise of his question referenced BOTH my pay rate AND a dc of 40,000? I don't get that dc. Senior fNWA guys don't get that because of a pre merger agreement to give that money to the junior fNWA guys to holster their retirements. That's why I said that I was a bad example to use for his question...as shown below:

Can we get back to the TA now, or do you need to keep bashing the object of your man crush?

Carl

Denny Crane

The reason I used Independence Air as an example is because they violated our scope clause by trying to fly Delta code while also flying larger aircraft than were permitted by our scope clause. (Kinda like Frontier but not with the "different certificate" argument.) This was a clear violation of our scope clause. Our code was removed from IA and is one of the major reasons they went out of business...

I see the similarity in that, if Delta gets out of balance with the ratio, ALPA could force removal of DL code by management from DCI carriers to get back into compliance.

Denny

georgetg

T, I am probably misunderstanding you here.
Our PWA is pretty specific about what jets DCI providers are permitted to operate. Section 1.D specifically discusses permitted aircraft types. If they fly under the DCI banner, they are bound by the permitted aircraft types limits.

For example that section prohibits Delta from contracting with JetBlue to operate EMB170s for DCI, while still running the JetBlue A320 and EMB190 operation.

Most majors have a similar clause in their Section 1.

That's why Chautauqua (now known as Republic, because it's easier to spell) started collecting different certificates early on as a workaround to the Scope clauses of the majors they served. While everyone is on the same seniority list, they operate jets under different 121 operating certificates to comply with the "air carrier" restrictions. while the jets were RJs, nobody really paid much attention to it and just shrugged their shoulders. Then "Republic" purchased Midwest and Frontier and many of us wrote our reps. The reply was pretty plain. While the "intent" of the language in the PWA was written to actually use the broad definition of 49 USC § 40102 (a) (2)
The reply from the DALPA council Bill Roberts was simple:
The TA goes a long way to fixing this situation by improving the language specifically addressing holding companies.

So yes, we have language in our PWA, that prohibits a DCI carrier from operating larger "non-permitted" aircraft.

Cheers
George

P.S.: Unfortunately the company must have pushed for an specific exemption for Republic (Chautauqua, Shuttle America) that exempts them from this improved language.

Carl Spackler

Great points all Denny. I never knew that it was Delta pilots that won that grievance and mandated that ruling on Independence Air. It may not be a perfect analogy, but a good legal precedent to have.

I would have no concern at all about us filing such a grievance against Delta regarding operations of a non-ALPA airline. But do you think our union would do that to an RJ airline that had ALPA pilots? Would DALPA be pressured to "look the other way" so as not to harm fellow ALPA pilots?

Carl

tsquare

You don't get the DC because you have a fully funded DB plan. (Plus some sort of other lump sum payout that I am unsure of.. I heard that from a fNWA 320 captain. I will find out more about THAT and remind you of just how pitiful your case really is) How dare you come on here and act like you have been harmed in this instance. But guess what, you will get the DC 2015. I'll betcha that if you think about that for a little while you will NEVER leave...

Talk about insulting.

MrBojangles

not at all what i'm saying. the changed work rules will result in the need for 300 less pilots (at least people have been throwing that number around). Yes, we would get 717's, but after retiring the last of the -9's and how many more other aircraft we may find ourselves sliding backwards. of course maybe there would be some senior guys bidding reserve.

Carl Spackler

You're right. We need to be more careful with these comparisons. This guy makes 289K for 12 days of work:

Carl

slowplay

The current block hour ratio is 1.19-1.

So what the alleged math "proves" is that DCI will have to shrink airframes by 25%, seats by 16%, and has to have at least a reduction from the current 1.19-1 to 1.56-1 ratio of block hours, and the "worst case" scenario a guy comes up with is that DCI shrinks even more than that?

And that's a "yikes"? Here I thought this board was all about scope...you know, the stuff that ensures Delta pilots do more Delta flying...

UncleSam

Thanks for this FTB. It's good for us all to remember the sacrifices that have been made. Many of us here could have been a part of this picture. I am truly grateful to all who have served, but especially to those who are now honored and gone. Let's not forget what they lost.

I have been reading much of the debate/discussion here since the TA was made public. I have many years here at Delta but this is the longest period of time that has passed without a section 6, ever. That always leads to frustration and, as we see here, anger. Many folks here have made some very good points about both the good and bad about this TA. Some have expectations that are unrealistic, IMO.

A lot of angst has been exhibited about SWA being paid more than us over the last few years. We all know that has not always been the case. They have never tried, via negotiation, to best the industry in pay. They got to where they are by slow, steady increases. And yes, many of the items in their duty rigs are more advantageous than ours. I expect them to quickly fall behind the rest of the industry as other major players get "healthier".

We are where we are because of a BK that we were not responsible for, in fact, we as a pilot group sacrificed a lot in an effort to skip that situation. As much as I would like to have it ALL back, that will not happen at one time. I think that tsquare made a great point in noting that this TA is for only 3 years, when we expect the financials to be even better for our employer.

Remember that both sides of any negotiation will usually be unhappy about some of the outcome. As someone else has already said, the company will be very happy if it only passes by 51%. They will know that they got all they could. Likewise, DALPA (the pilot group, not the negotiators/MEC) will know that we got all we could, AT THIS POINT. Since this is only a 3 year agreement, anyone who expects to retire before it ends will probably vote for the TA. Otherwise, they probably will not see any benefit from this round of negotiations. I am in that group.

So, as you evaluate whether you will vote yes or no, consider how the TA will affect every sub-group in our entire pilot group. The FNWA folks at the top of the list have some reasons to take the early retirement program whereas the FDAL folks have less reason. Only a very few FDAL folks have been here as long as I have, so we will not affect the outcome in any significant numbers, but there are still significant numbers of pilots that will be forced to retire in the next 5 years and more after that. The company will always want to find ways to mitigate the effects of those retirements. This time they are trying to control the timing of the retirements. That will not significantly affect the other pilots either good or bad. I don't think we "paid" for this in the negotiation other than swapping early out with medical benefits for company control of timing.

As several have previously stated, we will all be better informed after we talk to our reps and attend a "road show". Whether you like what they tell you or not, they really know more about what we are signing on for than we know. It's obvious that all our reps did not think this TA should go to the pilot group. That is very different from past DAL TA's. I don't think I need to tell the folks on this board to be sure to VOTE. Just be willing to live with the outcome.

Jack Bauer

One big difference between what we are talking about with the current proposal and IA....management would likely be the ones pushing for the larger airplane outsourcing, exploiting the loopholes this time. With IA, they were going rogue and doing their own thing without permission.