Details on Delta TA
06-13-2015, 10:57 AM
#8411
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
I'm glad you're seeing that man. People really need to stop listening to others' interpretations of the TA like professor and the other guys on flight pay loss here. The actual TA language is all you need. It's straight forward to understand...and devastating to pilot jobs. Continue to read for yourselves.
Carl
Carl
06-13-2015, 11:01 AM
#8412
New Hire
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: 767er FO
Posts: 8
I totally agree!
The problem is, if ALPA stands to lose $8 million in 2015 alone, and the company stands to lose the ability to cut staffing requirements due to the increased productivity from higher TLV, fewer sick calls, junior FOs back on reserve after LCA trips are blocked from bidding (which requires fewer green slips, less open time and greater flexibility in trip coverage) and less movement into widebodies due to the drastic reduction in Transatlantic flights required by the new AF JV transition to block hours vs EASKs, THEN WHY THE HELL would either ALPA or DAL allow this TA to fail???
The problem is, if ALPA stands to lose $8 million in 2015 alone, and the company stands to lose the ability to cut staffing requirements due to the increased productivity from higher TLV, fewer sick calls, junior FOs back on reserve after LCA trips are blocked from bidding (which requires fewer green slips, less open time and greater flexibility in trip coverage) and less movement into widebodies due to the drastic reduction in Transatlantic flights required by the new AF JV transition to block hours vs EASKs, THEN WHY THE HELL would either ALPA or DAL allow this TA to fail???
06-13-2015, 11:10 AM
#8413
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Capacity vs Block Hours:
Measuring capacity (EASK Equivalent Seat Kilometers) to account for flying share hurts us when JV capacity is reduced. For every AF A380 cut, Delta cut nearly three (2.8) 767ERs to keep the percentage even.
But wait, not only has the JV cut capacity across the Atlantic, but Delta is flying less than the required share of the reduced flying. In short we got hit with a double whammy.
As the European economy rebounds we are looking much better. With added capacity the existing agreement disproportionately favors Delta pilots. For every AF A380 route added, Delta must add nearly three (2.8) 767ER or two A330 routes to maintain the same share. With Delta averaging less than our minimum share, the flying increase to match must be even larger. We stand to gain exponential international flying.
By switching to Aircraft Block Hours now we will fail to capture that increase but lock in the disproportionate hit we have taken so far.
Cheers
George
Measuring capacity (EASK Equivalent Seat Kilometers) to account for flying share hurts us when JV capacity is reduced. For every AF A380 cut, Delta cut nearly three (2.8) 767ERs to keep the percentage even.
But wait, not only has the JV cut capacity across the Atlantic, but Delta is flying less than the required share of the reduced flying. In short we got hit with a double whammy.
As the European economy rebounds we are looking much better. With added capacity the existing agreement disproportionately favors Delta pilots. For every AF A380 route added, Delta must add nearly three (2.8) 767ER or two A330 routes to maintain the same share. With Delta averaging less than our minimum share, the flying increase to match must be even larger. We stand to gain exponential international flying.
By switching to Aircraft Block Hours now we will fail to capture that increase but lock in the disproportionate hit we have taken so far.
Cheers
George
Carl
06-13-2015, 11:14 AM
#8414
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 115
I am willing to listen. If you are just going to attack me, then you aren't proving your point. During C2012, the same hysteria was used in regards to sick leave and the RJ issue. Don't you remember the 717's were going to replace the 88's? now it's the 190's. If they lose 100 rj's over the next few years, they need to have other aircraft to replace them or they abandon markets. An airplane can only be in one place at one time. So they add more mainline to fill in.
Quit being mean and just tell me what all the terrible things are. Most of what is posted here is just overblown hype. Last time ALPA said pilots will make more money and have more mainline flying. APC comes up with crazy scenarios about how this all explodes in our faces. Three years later pilots are making more money and we hired 1500+ pilots. Who has the blinders on?
Quit being mean and just tell me what all the terrible things are. Most of what is posted here is just overblown hype. Last time ALPA said pilots will make more money and have more mainline flying. APC comes up with crazy scenarios about how this all explodes in our faces. Three years later pilots are making more money and we hired 1500+ pilots. Who has the blinders on?
06-13-2015, 11:14 AM
#8415
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 16
As I am winding down my career, I really tried to stay out of the forum fray this time around, but...
The changes in Section 14 – “Sick Leave” under this TA seem particularly onerous and punitive to me. If a small percentage of pilots are abusing sick leave, why punish the whole group?
Under the current PWA, if I sprain an ankle and I’m out three weeks, missing three 5-day trips, I get a doctor’s note and I still have 100 hours of unverified sick leave available.
Under the TA, if I sprain an ankle and I’m out three weeks, I don’t have the option to verify. Those three trips count against my 15 day “Verification Threshold.”
If I subsequently have a cold this winter, I’m required to go to the doctor’s office to get a “QHCP” to verify I have a cold – ridiculous!
So, it is not just a reduction from 100 hours of unverified sick leave to 15 days/80ish hours under this TA. The removal of voluntary verification is HUGE!
Also, be aware that the FAA recently changed the mandatory waiting time between the last dose of potentially sedating or cognitively impairing medications and the performance of flight duties. This was discussed in the “DELTA MEC SAFETY SHORT SHOTS” 15-05 publication as well as the April 2015 ALPA Magazine.
The former rule was to wait only “two dosing intervals,” but now you are required to wait “five dosing periods or five half-lives” of the medication, whichever is longer.
As an example, for Benadryl or “diphenhydramine” that means 60 hours and for cough meds that contain “dextromethorphan” it means 48 hours.
Bottom line is that will mean you are out sick for a longer period of time making it more likely you will meet the “Verification Threshold” requirement under this TA. Once you meet it, you will be going to the doctor for verification of any minor illness, like a cold, just to get paid.
Solid NO from me...
The changes in Section 14 – “Sick Leave” under this TA seem particularly onerous and punitive to me. If a small percentage of pilots are abusing sick leave, why punish the whole group?
Under the current PWA, if I sprain an ankle and I’m out three weeks, missing three 5-day trips, I get a doctor’s note and I still have 100 hours of unverified sick leave available.
Under the TA, if I sprain an ankle and I’m out three weeks, I don’t have the option to verify. Those three trips count against my 15 day “Verification Threshold.”
If I subsequently have a cold this winter, I’m required to go to the doctor’s office to get a “QHCP” to verify I have a cold – ridiculous!
So, it is not just a reduction from 100 hours of unverified sick leave to 15 days/80ish hours under this TA. The removal of voluntary verification is HUGE!
Also, be aware that the FAA recently changed the mandatory waiting time between the last dose of potentially sedating or cognitively impairing medications and the performance of flight duties. This was discussed in the “DELTA MEC SAFETY SHORT SHOTS” 15-05 publication as well as the April 2015 ALPA Magazine.
The former rule was to wait only “two dosing intervals,” but now you are required to wait “five dosing periods or five half-lives” of the medication, whichever is longer.
As an example, for Benadryl or “diphenhydramine” that means 60 hours and for cough meds that contain “dextromethorphan” it means 48 hours.
Bottom line is that will mean you are out sick for a longer period of time making it more likely you will meet the “Verification Threshold” requirement under this TA. Once you meet it, you will be going to the doctor for verification of any minor illness, like a cold, just to get paid.
Solid NO from me...
06-13-2015, 11:16 AM
#8416
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
3-Year Look Back:
When Alitalia joined the JV we modified PWA 1.P in 2010 via MOU 14, to account for the extra flying Alitalia was bringing to the European side of the JV. We managed to secure a gain from a 47% share to a 50% share of the JV Capacity, but gave the company a 3-year window to comply with a 1.5% up/down tolerance. Failure to meet the 3-year share minimum average starts a 1-year clock to cure the contractual breach.
The first 3-year time frame to measure the 50% was April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2014. Going forward we will measure the 3-years average every April 1st.
Looking back on April 1, 2014 the company failed to reach even the lower limit of 48.5% for our share of flying. This started the one-year cure period. The company had 1 year to meet the goal by March 31, 2015. Again measured on a 3-year look-back.
On April 1, 2015, Delta failed to meet even the lower limit which was the basis for the grievance that netted $30M.
Unfortunately the problem of flying less than the contractual share remains. On March 31, 2016 there will be another 3-year look-back measurement. And because we have flown well under our share for the last 4 years, the company will once again come up short and will be subject to another grievance.
We've accumulated a 4-year flying debt. Delta has made one payment. We have three more years of accumulated underages to go. Delta still isn't showing signs it is interested in reversing the trend.
By switching to a 1-year look back now, we are resetting the clock, discarding accumulated flying debt, opening a new 2-year window and won't have any recourse until April 1, 2017. Why would we do that?
Cheers
George
When Alitalia joined the JV we modified PWA 1.P in 2010 via MOU 14, to account for the extra flying Alitalia was bringing to the European side of the JV. We managed to secure a gain from a 47% share to a 50% share of the JV Capacity, but gave the company a 3-year window to comply with a 1.5% up/down tolerance. Failure to meet the 3-year share minimum average starts a 1-year clock to cure the contractual breach.
The first 3-year time frame to measure the 50% was April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2014. Going forward we will measure the 3-years average every April 1st.
Looking back on April 1, 2014 the company failed to reach even the lower limit of 48.5% for our share of flying. This started the one-year cure period. The company had 1 year to meet the goal by March 31, 2015. Again measured on a 3-year look-back.
On April 1, 2015, Delta failed to meet even the lower limit which was the basis for the grievance that netted $30M.
Unfortunately the problem of flying less than the contractual share remains. On March 31, 2016 there will be another 3-year look-back measurement. And because we have flown well under our share for the last 4 years, the company will once again come up short and will be subject to another grievance.
We've accumulated a 4-year flying debt. Delta has made one payment. We have three more years of accumulated underages to go. Delta still isn't showing signs it is interested in reversing the trend.
By switching to a 1-year look back now, we are resetting the clock, discarding accumulated flying debt, opening a new 2-year window and won't have any recourse until April 1, 2017. Why would we do that?
Cheers
George
Carl
06-13-2015, 11:52 AM
#8417
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Industry Leading
Posts: 31
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, 12:13 PM
#8419
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,994
I'm thinking this forum is a dangerous place. I've spent days glued to it, happy how many people (here) plan to vote no. I've talked with most of my Delta buddies, who all think the TA stinks (but not all of whom can vote).
Then, I go fly the line and 100% of the Captains I've flown with (1 of 1) say "The pay is pretty good...we won't get more if we go back, I'm probably a yes" (thence commenced much discussion and he was receptive to the alternative - or appeared to be so).
Based on my statistically insignificant friend pool, I think the younger guys are pretty on-board with voting this down. But what about the As??? Especially those who don't "waste their time" here...I'm worried that the resistance isn't more organized.
Then, I go fly the line and 100% of the Captains I've flown with (1 of 1) say "The pay is pretty good...we won't get more if we go back, I'm probably a yes" (thence commenced much discussion and he was receptive to the alternative - or appeared to be so).
Based on my statistically insignificant friend pool, I think the younger guys are pretty on-board with voting this down. But what about the As??? Especially those who don't "waste their time" here...I'm worried that the resistance isn't more organized.
06-13-2015, 12:18 PM
#8420
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
I am willing to listen. If you are just going to attack me, then you aren't proving your point. During C2012, the same hysteria was used in regards to sick leave and the RJ issue. Don't you remember the 717's were going to replace the 88's? now it's the 190's. If they lose 100 rj's over the next few years, they need to have other aircraft to replace them or they abandon markets. An airplane can only be in one place at one time. So they add more mainline to fill in.
Attack you!?! Really? Well my apologies if you think that was an attack. You have not responded to any of the points I have made. I'm not as worried about small end scope as I am about high end scope. As you can see by George's posts we stand to be taken to the cleaners there. Small end scope not as much.
Quit being mean and just tell me what all the terrible things are. Most of what is posted here is just overblown hype. Last time ALPA said pilots will make more money and have more mainline flying. APC comes up with crazy scenarios about how this all explodes in our faces. Three years later pilots are making more money and we hired 1500+ pilots. Who has the blinders on?
Attack you!?! Really? Well my apologies if you think that was an attack. You have not responded to any of the points I have made. I'm not as worried about small end scope as I am about high end scope. As you can see by George's posts we stand to be taken to the cleaners there. Small end scope not as much.
Quit being mean and just tell me what all the terrible things are. Most of what is posted here is just overblown hype. Last time ALPA said pilots will make more money and have more mainline flying. APC comes up with crazy scenarios about how this all explodes in our faces. Three years later pilots are making more money and we hired 1500+ pilots. Who has the blinders on?
If you think it's overblown hype, I cannot help you. As has been said: You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.
You know what, I ended up in your camp on C2012 (and every contract before that). The question you should be asking yourself is: why is a guy like Denny Crane vehemently against this TA? Then you might be able to see a smidgen of my point of view. Heck, even Slowplay says there are a lot of concessions in this agreement. I think there are a lot more than he does but he still said that.
As for the blinders, whose "attacking" whom now.
I will leave that up to others to judge.Denny
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
