Friday June 15 is the Seattle base road show on the TA. The road show will be held at the SeaTac Conference Center from 1–4 p.m. in the Central Auditorium, mezzanine level, north of DAL pilot Flight Ops. If ratified, the effective date for the TA will be July 1, 2012. Significant amounts of information have been provided to you. Please educate yourself on the TA and vote what is best for you and your family.

The Contract 2012 membership ratification window will open on Friday, June 15 at 10 a.m. EDT and will close on Friday, June 29 at 10 a.m. EDT. Instructions on how to cast your vote will be provided prior to the opening of the window. Please note that the ballot certification roster will be produced on June 14. Only active, executive active, and grievance pending members in good standing at the time the eligibility roster is pulled will be eligible to vote. If you are unsure of your membership status, please contact [email protected] or 1-888-FLY-ALPA x2660 prior to June 14 to ensure that you are eligible.
If you are unable to attend one of the MEC road shows, a web-based version of the Contract 2012 road show is now available and can be accessed from the Media Gallery or from a link on the Section 6 page of the Delta MEC website (which also provides links to the presentations on the Delta MEC’s YouTube channel). A condensed version of the PowerPoint presentation used in the road show has also been posted to the Section 6 page, both as a PDF file and as a PowerPoint show.
Contract 2012 Frequently Asked Questions are now posted on the Delta MEC website, and early this week, a condensed version was sent to you as Negotiators’ Notepad 12-11. The online FAQs are updated daily as questions concerning the TA are collected from the pilot group. The FAQs provide an organized, easily-accessible collection of answers to Contract 2012-related questions.
A regular MEC meeting was held in Atlanta May 15-21, 2012, along with the presentation and review of the TA. Here is a review of the regular business at this meeting:

The uniform survey results were made available to the MEC at the meeting. You can view the results of the survey on the Council 54 website. The Company is not proposing any changes to the current uniform policy or wear at this time. The survey was a result of a Council 54 resolution.

The Central Air Safety Chairman Election resolution was deferred to the next regular MEC meeting, scheduled for August 2012. With the focus on the TA, the MEC decided to devote its time at this meeting to consideration and review of the TA.

The Amsterdam Bike Check Out resolution was passed. The MEC directed the MEC chairman to look into improving the availability of bicycles at the AMS hotel and report back to the MEC possible solutions for efficient use of the bicycles.

The A330-300 CROT arbitration hearing will be conducted with arbitrator Richard Block on June 18-20, 2012, in Atlanta.

Captain Richard Pauly has resigned as the Central Air Safety Committee chairman. We appreciate Rich’s long service to our members and his commitment to the safety of our crews and passengers.

Captain Scott Hammond has been appointed as the interim Central Air Safety Committee chairman. The MEC will vote in August on whether to confirm this appointment. Scott has an extensive work history with ASAP and safety policies and procedures. We applaud this appointment and support his confirmation.

Chairman’s Perspective—Pat Harney
The presentation of information concerning the Tentative Agreement has been ongoing for the past few weeks, along with crew room visits by your council reps and Delta Pilot Network (DPN) volunteers. Road shows have taken place throughout the system, and the SEA road show is scheduled for this Friday. Soon, it will be time to vote on the TA. Your reps will be in the crew rooms for Q&A along with DPN volunteers during the ratification period. Our perspective in this update will be a halftime report on the TA that is before you for your consideration.

In my time in the lounge, along with phone calls and e-mails, I have encountered three groups of pilots; the definite no vote, the definite yes vote, and those who are considering what is the best path for a successful outcome for their vote on the TA. I will focus my perspective on those contemplating the best outcome in their thought process. I was at that place when the MEC was initially presented the TA.

The conflict on how to vote likely comes from your own expectations—years of stagnation, sacrifices made during BK, the survey results, the profits made by the company, the effort we provided in the merger, did we get all we can in this TA, can we get more? The list goes on. Use these points for a reference, and then as a few more—what is the economy going to do in the next six months to two years? What is going to happen in Europe? In making your decision, try to take the emotion out of the decision; use just the facts. You might want to ask another pilot from another airline what they think of the TA.

If yes, then you will have a contract now, not a “hoped for” contract in the future. You will have set a pattern bargaining benchmark for other carriers to aim for, which will hopefully result in a pattern for us to aim for in the not too distant future. My hope and “expectation” was to extract even larger increases in pay; however, you will have a compensation increase of over 20 percent in 2.5 years, and at that time we will have begun to start negotiations on a new contract. The hope is that UAL, SWA, FedEx, and UPS will have contractual improvements for us to pattern bargain off of when we reengage.

If no, we will have no gains for 2-3 months or 2-3 years; no one knows that answer with certainty. There is the potential to break the mutually beneficial constructive engagement we have enjoyed for many years. There is the potential for the economy to unravel locally or abroad. Will we get improvements on what we have now or not? How much will the hoped for improvements be worth? What will an extracted time to negotiate cost? What will the benefit be?

If you look at where we are compared to our competitors, we have far exceeded them in restoration in our contract. At one time, APA demanded 50 percent pay raises from date of signing. Their company said no for the last six years, and the NMB put them on ice. Their reward? Zero pay and contract improvements and then Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. USAPA’s path has resulted in zero pay and contractual improvements for the last seven years. Do we want to risk this road? If we ratify this contract, and the next day UAL settled on a joint contract with first year pay DOS increase of 15%, year 2 with 10%, and year 3 with another 10%, for a total of 35% pay increase, in three years they would still not be at our rate! They would need to achieve over 40% in three years to catch up with our TA rates in 2015.

In the end, read the information that has been provided to you, ask questions, and attend the road show in order to help make an informed vote. Try to take the emotion out of what should be a business decision about what you believe has the greatest chance of maximizing your pay, work rules, scope protections, and benefits. If the majority votes to ratify the contract, we will begin the process of implementation. If not, the MEC will meet to reconsider its options. In any event, please take the time to vote.

Vice Chairman’s Perspective—Art Aaron
As the voting window opens tomorrow you will contemplate the risk-versus-reward items that are held in this TA. Some are spinning my vote of no as an anger issue about the process. Some are even trying to label me as a no-voter on everything. Others have labeled me a “red book pilot,” even though I am a 1995 “blue book” hire.

I was for the Delta/NWA merger and in favor of equity over profit sharing. I favor Delta to be successful and profitable. My vote was strictly on the merits of the TA, as I had verbally stated to the MEC when I cast my vote. While my vice chairman’s TA perspective touched upon a few process issues, the majority of the article dealt with my concerns for this pilot group and the SEA base. My decision to vote no on the TA is based on the following questions and concerns:

This TA is now yours. It is not the Negotiating Committee’s product, and it is no longer the MEC’s product. It is yours, and you will need to assess your level of risk. Whether you want to accept this or not is based on how you interpret the risk. It is interesting to note that those pilots in 2006 who voted no on a bankruptcy contract (when the risk to our careers was high) are now contemplating a yes vote on this TA where little risk is evident. We are in Section 6 now, and this is the product of the dual-tract process that we spoke of. Does this product meet your needs? If it does, vote yes. If it does not, vote no. I have done my best to provide you with the other side of the story and will be good with either outcome, but would prefer an informed vote by the pilot group based on each pilot’s personal analysis and risk tolerance.

Secretary-Treasurer’s Perspective—Ron Morrell
Halftime Report
It has now been 24 days since the MEC voted to send the TA to the pilots for their decision. I have spent 20 of those days in the Seattle crew lounge listening to and talking to the pilots of Council 54. Some of the discussions were very emotional, ranging from anger to resignation. The questions have been varied and unlimited. Overall, I want to thank the pilots of Seattle for their engagement and for keeping the dialogue open. I hope this will continue right up until the vote is counted and beyond, regardless of the results.

We are now halfway through the education and voting period. Many of you have already made up your minds about this TA. There are still many who have stated that they are on the fence or do not have enough information, I will continue to be available in the lounge for questions and to explain my position in regards to the direction for our future. This is a good time to review the concerns I am hearing and provide you with the information that is most important to the many pilots that I have had discussions with during the past two weeks.

Process: There have been many questions and statements brought up concerning how we got here. I fully stand by my earlier perspective that was communicated to you on May 29. The facts are simple—the Negotiators and MEC Administration handed this TA to the MEC on May 14, and, after a full week of meetings, the MEC voted 14 to 5 to send it to you for your vote. Your Seattle chairman decided to vote for sending this TA to the pilots, while your vice chairman and secretary-treasurer were against that direction. How and why this TA came to you in its present form can and will be debated. The questions that need to be answered need to come from those who brought you this TA and the MEC members who voted to give this TA to you for a vote. I try to end every conversation concerning the process and the hows and whys with a simple statement, “I’m not happy about the process, but we now have a choice to make, and every pilot needs to evaluate the TA that is in front of them and decide.” We must deal with the process at a later date, now we only have one choice to make; do you think this TA meets the needs you communicated to your representatives, and do you choose this TA as your new Pilot Working Agreement for the future?

The decision we are faced with: The following is a condensed version of many of the conversations and questions I have been dealing with during the last three weeks. I will not specifically address the content of the TA that has been sent to you through the MEC Administration’s communications and the Negotiators’ Notepads that have been distributed electronically and to your v-files. The positive aspects of the TA are being well advertised and do not need to be reiterated here.

Scope
Section 1 of the TA has some very important changes—a hard cap on DCI hulls after 88 B-717s show up on our property, a block hour ration to ensure the DCI carriers cannot grow while the mainline domestic flying shrinks, and some incentive language that entices management to negotiate production balances for any future JV agreements. On the other side of the equation, this TA gives scope relief in a very big way to help Delta management rid themselves of unprofitable 50-seat airframes in an expedited manner. To many, the addition of 70 large RJs is not a good tradeoff when it was management’s decision to acquire the 50-seat aircraft and to write the contracts for the operation of these airframes that they now need relief from. Did we receive enough negotiating credit to allow this relief of our present scope language? Do the block hour ratios have enough padding that we could still see other narrow body aircraft parked without hitting the ratio limit? Would this equate to little or no growth to the mainline fleet in spite of allowing the increase in 76-seat RJs?

The scope equation also must include the protection of our international flying, and I find the changes in this area inadequate. I have been asked where the protection for our Asia and Fifth Freedom rights flying is delineated, and I have been unable to point them to any new language that ensures this flying is not lost. I have concerns about what may be missing. The fact that DAL could be looking for an Asian partner to mitigate changes to the Narita/Haneda flying situation but have not addressed this in any way in this TA is very concerning.

Compensation
We have all seen the percentage pay increases and the one percent increase in DC (in 18 months), as well as small increases in per diem, international pay, and vacation days. The fact that we gave up a portion of our profit sharing plan is not lost on the pilots that expected much better pay scales. The pilot surveys did not ask if the pilots wanted to trade one type of pay (that was negotiated for in the past) for another type of pay. Most pilots do see the advantage to guaranteed pay verses pay based on company profits, but the fact that we have agreed to give up a portion of our profit sharing at a time when the company is projecting record profits for the next few years is unsatisfactory.

Reserve pay increase to ALV minus 2 hours (72-80 hours) is a definite help to those who are either junior in their position or choose to bid reserve. Is this a good trade for being required to be available for up to 15 hours above ALV? The productivity increases with the increased reserve availability combined with the increase in the maximum ALV to 84 hours for line holders is not small! Do these productivity increases justify the pay raises? Were these trades adequate based on the position of our company in the industry at this time? You must decide.

Sick/Benefits
I have seen no pilots that were not happy to see the 75 percent sick pay situation disappear, but just as many are perplexed over why the negotiators would claim that the sick leave monitoring program was eliminated when we have now agreed to a “Verification Program.” There are many good changes to the other aspects of sick leave, but many want answers to why we would agree to a required verification once anyone hits 100 hours or a 15-day sick call in a 12-month rolling period. This is a hard discussion; did we give up a nebulous occasional phone call for a required doctors’ note? I can’t answer that question for you, you must make the call.

There are many other benefits changes that the MEC Administration and negotiators have disbursed, and I have not seen too many questions or complaints.

Epilogue
Many of the pilots in the Seattle crew lounge have been very animated, and most have been very willing to have comprehensive discussions before and after they fly the line; I thank them all and will continue to make myself available. As for this TA, I have tried to point out that there is something good in this agreement for everyone. There are also many concerns in this agreement. My questions back to those who talk with me are the following:

Does this agreement meet your expectations and cover the concerns you have dictated to your representatives and the MEC? Does this agreement compensate you enough to justify the productivity increases and scope relief that it contains? Are you confident that this agreement protects your flying and your career? If you are ready to retire, does this agreement leave the right legacy for our junior pilots?

Your answers will dictate your vote.

Where do we go from here?
This subject seems to be the most questioned and discussed one out in the lounges. I assume all of the representatives spending time in the various bases are listening as well as talking. If the vote ratifies this TA, the MEC will continue (since it has already started) to work on the implementation issues and attempt to get all of the advantages this TA contains to the pilots as soon as we can. In the event this TA is not ratified, we go back to work! It is my intention to do the best I can to help move the MEC forward to reengage management with a strong plan to make the changes needed to answer the concerns of our pilots. We are still many months away from the amendable date and even further away from any outside agencies taking over our process; we will make that time count!

See you in the lounge and keep asking the tough questions!

Fraternally,

Capt. Pat Harney
Chairman
[email protected]
[email protected]
206 769-7124
F/O Art Aaron
Vice Chairman
[email protected]
[email protected]
425-677-5096
Capt. Ron Morrell
Secretary-Treasurer
[email protected]
[email protected]
425-463-6519