Details on Delta TA
06-13-2015, 08:25 AM
#8381
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: A330 First Officer
Posts: 1,465
Ok but again what seat and aircraft were you flying then and now. Looking at your w-2 could mean in 06 you flew reserve 88 fo and no GS's and last year you were a 73 Capt with a line flying 90 hours a month and a GS a quarter.
06-13-2015, 08:35 AM
#8382
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
)Once again, I was a disappointed NO till i saw the medical stuff, now I'm a angry NO.
Ferd
06-13-2015, 08:42 AM
#8383
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
What you have posted here is inaccurate.
You are combining two different things. There is a verification threshold. Verification is done by your M.D.,D.O.,D.D.S., D.C.,D.M.D., or D.P.M., A.P.R.N., P.A. - C, or PhD and is credentialed as a licensed clinical psychologist. Verification is required if you use more than 15 days of sick in a rolling 365 days.
There is a medical release threshold of 24 sick days in a rolling 365 or 52 days in a 3 year period. You must first be provided the opportunity to use your provider to satisfy the medical basis for your sick leave; a medical release must be limited to the specific instance in which a pilot claimed sick leave AND the day(s) on which the pilot claimed sick leave and the consecutive day(s) off immediately preceding and succeeding the day(s) on which a pilot claimed sick leave.
These provisions take the CPO out of the verification loop. The only non-medical professional that can be involved in the process is the SVP Flight Operations, and he can only be involved if the medical verification and medical release do not provide sufficient information for them to determine why you used sick leave.
You can read the language in the TA Section 14. The 15 day, 24 day, and 52 day triggers are clearly concessionary. The rest is not, taking non-medical people out of the process, and should enhance our privacy.
You are combining two different things. There is a verification threshold. Verification is done by your M.D.,D.O.,D.D.S., D.C.,D.M.D., or D.P.M., A.P.R.N., P.A. - C, or PhD and is credentialed as a licensed clinical psychologist. Verification is required if you use more than 15 days of sick in a rolling 365 days.
There is a medical release threshold of 24 sick days in a rolling 365 or 52 days in a 3 year period. You must first be provided the opportunity to use your provider to satisfy the medical basis for your sick leave; a medical release must be limited to the specific instance in which a pilot claimed sick leave AND the day(s) on which the pilot claimed sick leave and the consecutive day(s) off immediately preceding and succeeding the day(s) on which a pilot claimed sick leave.
These provisions take the CPO out of the verification loop. The only non-medical professional that can be involved in the process is the SVP Flight Operations, and he can only be involved if the medical verification and medical release do not provide sufficient information for them to determine why you used sick leave.
You can read the language in the TA Section 14. The 15 day, 24 day, and 52 day triggers are clearly concessionary. The rest is not, taking non-medical people out of the process, and should enhance our privacy.
Emotional rants do nothing for the discussion.
Needless to say, I'm voting no primary on the medical stuff...........something I rarely use.
06-13-2015, 08:43 AM
#8384
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 115
For every $21,500 I get in pay, lose from 0-5700 in profit sharing
Sick leave is a paperwork hassle if you use a lot of sick leave. If you don't use a lot of sick leave, no change. This hysteria about medical records is stupid, is Delta going to sell your medical records to the Russian mafia?
RJ Scope is better, less RJ's more mainline
AF/KLM cuts out Heathrow from the ratio which is good because that's where the money is. The rest is just protecting where we are. Seriously, does anyone truly think a business man would tolerate going across the Atlantic in a 737 or baby bus. Get real. In fact our flying across the atlantic is growing just not enough for the old ratio.
OE trip drop changes are bad for those guys that get them, but it's difficult to defend a practice designed to pay people to sit at home
We give 1 hour on TLV and we get better rotations from the RCC
Vacation goes up by :15 minutes
DC plan goes up by 1%
A bunch of other small gains
Yes, it's mostly good stuff.
Tell me the rest of the horror story. I don't see it.
06-13-2015, 08:51 AM
#8386
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,599
This will be a very damaging TA regardless of how we vote on it. It we pass it we eat massive concessions all around, including unprecidented foreign alter ego airlines and a lower and further reduceable AF/KLM JV. If we vote against it it will take a strong effort to overcome the baseline it created.
So I propose we gift the company 100 million dollars.
That's right, and I'm not kidding.
If the net value of this TA is supposedly 1.1B over 3 years, and assuming it was properly comprehensively costed out (I don't think it was, but the company and the NC will absolutely stand by that it was) then when we vote it down let's offer 1.0B over 3 years to our current contract and put it in payrates alone. Nothing else. Nothing. Else.
The company couldn't possibly have a problem with that, could they? If the true net cost was 1.1B extra and we're offering them a free 100M (to return to the shareholders! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!) then they would be a fiduciary obligation for them to accept that.
Assuming this TA was properly costed out all around that is. Which further assumes they would *never* do any of the worst case things that they *could* do IAW this TA, like massive sick harassment on a scale never before seen, foreign alter egos, 75/76's against a new A380 order for our "partners" AF/KLM, etc.
If the true cost of the pros and cons cost 1.1B extra, from our point of view and theirs, give them one hundred million dollars, or donate it to the charity of their choice, and put the 1.0B into pay rates alone and stick with current book.
What possibe problem could they have with that?
So I propose we gift the company 100 million dollars.
That's right, and I'm not kidding.
If the net value of this TA is supposedly 1.1B over 3 years, and assuming it was properly comprehensively costed out (I don't think it was, but the company and the NC will absolutely stand by that it was) then when we vote it down let's offer 1.0B over 3 years to our current contract and put it in payrates alone. Nothing else. Nothing. Else.
The company couldn't possibly have a problem with that, could they? If the true net cost was 1.1B extra and we're offering them a free 100M (to return to the shareholders! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!) then they would be a fiduciary obligation for them to accept that.
Assuming this TA was properly costed out all around that is. Which further assumes they would *never* do any of the worst case things that they *could* do IAW this TA, like massive sick harassment on a scale never before seen, foreign alter egos, 75/76's against a new A380 order for our "partners" AF/KLM, etc.
If the true cost of the pros and cons cost 1.1B extra, from our point of view and theirs, give them one hundred million dollars, or donate it to the charity of their choice, and put the 1.0B into pay rates alone and stick with current book.
What possibe problem could they have with that?
06-13-2015, 08:54 AM
#8387
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Agreed.
Denny
06-13-2015, 08:57 AM
#8388
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
06-13-2015, 08:58 AM
#8389
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
1 billion applied only as a raise would generate a 13 to 14% raise. Compare that to 3 to 5% in soft mobey raises and 20 plus in hard raise and that does not sound so good. In addition with fleet plan changes the company could reduce are transatlantic flying more then the TA. Not something I would be in favor of!
06-13-2015, 08:58 AM
#8390
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
Its funny that so much of the "protection" from this is found in projected/planned aircraft orders and current fleet plans. We can in no way ever use that as protection. We have to look at this in its worst case scenarios. They could sign a huge 380 order the day after we ratify this, or any day after that, and DAL would stand to lose mass quantities of marketshare. We could put mostly ER's on EU flying for the better part of 2 decades as AF/KLM only up-gauged and there wouldn't be a thing we could do about it. They could get 2/3 to perhaps 3/4 the EASK's and we'd just have to eat it.
Its also being sold as downside protection, but the opposite is true. If there was a huge demand drop, DL/AF/KLM could significantly reduce by further upgauging their AC while downgrading ours even while both pulled down. That would leave DL pulling down the majority of the seats. That's stupid fr us to do in a "metal neutral" agreement.
And, once again, WTH is up with that little suitcase nuke that allows the MEC chairman to single handedly allow a foreign alter ego with the DL name in DL paint staffed with cut throat foreign pilots? Is that even a legal line item WRT the ALPA policy manual? Can a potentially massive change like that happen with one man's signature? Or would they "interpret" the TA passage to be an evergreen consent for unlimited foreign alter ego carnage to our careers?
Some are trying to sell this as a positive claiming it adds the protection of the MEC chairman as a bulwark against rogue company actions, but that's only true if our current contract would permit the company to unilaterally create Delta branded foreign alter egos. There is no way that is the case or they would have done it long ago.
So why is this POS clause in there, and why are some guys intentionally misrepresenting it to get it to pass? This is the biggest deal in the entire TA and it was completely glossed over by the NC's little bullet points.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
