Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
![](https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/601264_323523894396976_1376631773_n.jpg)
I'm sure this is a metaphor for the TA.......I'm just not sure what it is
![Big Grin](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
![Ferd149 is offline](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
![](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/clear.gif)
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Driving to work & Looking Left @ the Surf!!
Posts: 727
![Going2Baja is offline](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Going to be dead honest here.
Shoot it down or not, the next TA will have more large jets in it. Its what the company has decided it needs to go forward. If we want any short of deal in the near term, the numbers are going to go up. It this group is willing to wait and hold the line, then you may see something here, but not for a long long long long time. I'd say years. Not kidding.
![acl65pilot is offline](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,530
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Going to be dead honest here.
Shoot it down or not, the next TA will have more large jets in it. Its what the company has decided it needs to go forward. If we want any short of deal in the near term, the numbers are going to go up. It this group is willing to wait and hold the line, then you may see something here, but not for a long long long long time. I'd say years. Not kidding.
Shoot it down or not, the next TA will have more large jets in it. Its what the company has decided it needs to go forward. If we want any short of deal in the near term, the numbers are going to go up. It this group is willing to wait and hold the line, then you may see something here, but not for a long long long long time. I'd say years. Not kidding.
![Columbia is offline](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Posts: 394
![texavia is offline](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Your right I did. The motivation for DAL to move now, is large RJ's and debt reduction. We pass on this and decide to go back it will be 2014 or beyond before the RJ issue is not one that will be their quickest course to an agreement or debt reduction.
The God for honest truth is most pilots here are not willing to wait for FLAP's, they want their money. A No vote in the majority will mean more pay and maybe more protections in 1, but the large RJ bump will remain. I understand that and am still voting do re-engage. Why? Because I want better protections and a process to take this bump in large RJ's down over the next 10-15 years. I want limits on aircraft numbers and extension durations, I want current CPA's to no be renewed. I also want broader JV language, better non compliance language with the ratios, I want a check valve on the ratios, I want a domestic alliance carrier clause outside of the JV language(covers more than just RJET but putting it in there before they do it is wise as well), I want HND added to the 315 weekly slot language for NRT(loss of leverage and force majure if the business plan or market viability changes, and I want to see better any beyond language for a replacement type for the 717. That section 1.
The rest of the agreement has to fix pay, reroute, reserve rotation pay to equal line holders, better CDA(6 int'l and 5 dom min) reserve rotation guarantee, codify the commuting policy, LV+7.5 not 15 or make it voluntary, Work rules are gradual implemented based on number of retirements, sick policy deletes DAL or their designee requesting medical documents unless you go to LTD; language does not need to be codified, holiday pay, more DC, stock grants immediately vested, better codification of non-rev policy, bow wave if MLB block goes 10% below two year rolling avg, and five PTO days added to the APD function; to name a few.
All of these are reasons I am willing to send it back. Little tweaks make this a much better agreement.
That right there is my opinion. Pay is still one, scope is two. Look at this board and all of the supposed Scope Warriors. Many agree that more RJ's are fine and are voting yes to this TA for more money, you really think that you can get this group to stand the ground? Its all in the psyche profile that was hired and is the majority here.
The God for honest truth is most pilots here are not willing to wait for FLAP's, they want their money. A No vote in the majority will mean more pay and maybe more protections in 1, but the large RJ bump will remain. I understand that and am still voting do re-engage. Why? Because I want better protections and a process to take this bump in large RJ's down over the next 10-15 years. I want limits on aircraft numbers and extension durations, I want current CPA's to no be renewed. I also want broader JV language, better non compliance language with the ratios, I want a check valve on the ratios, I want a domestic alliance carrier clause outside of the JV language(covers more than just RJET but putting it in there before they do it is wise as well), I want HND added to the 315 weekly slot language for NRT(loss of leverage and force majure if the business plan or market viability changes, and I want to see better any beyond language for a replacement type for the 717. That section 1.
The rest of the agreement has to fix pay, reroute, reserve rotation pay to equal line holders, better CDA(6 int'l and 5 dom min) reserve rotation guarantee, codify the commuting policy, LV+7.5 not 15 or make it voluntary, Work rules are gradual implemented based on number of retirements, sick policy deletes DAL or their designee requesting medical documents unless you go to LTD; language does not need to be codified, holiday pay, more DC, stock grants immediately vested, better codification of non-rev policy, bow wave if MLB block goes 10% below two year rolling avg, and five PTO days added to the APD function; to name a few.
All of these are reasons I am willing to send it back. Little tweaks make this a much better agreement.
That right there is my opinion. Pay is still one, scope is two. Look at this board and all of the supposed Scope Warriors. Many agree that more RJ's are fine and are voting yes to this TA for more money, you really think that you can get this group to stand the ground? Its all in the psyche profile that was hired and is the majority here.
Last edited by acl65pilot; 06-14-2012 at 12:15 PM.
![acl65pilot is offline](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
![forgot to bid is offline](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Position: C560XL/XLS/XLS+
Posts: 1,278
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
There will be a widebody RFP in the 3rd quarter, also some interest in another carriers 777-300's.
![dalad is offline](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
![Bill Lumberg is offline](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
![johnso29 is offline](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post