Carl Spackler

We don't employ professional negotiators.

Your premise is incorrect. See above.

Carl

forgot to bid

So put the Malone letter, SLI Rep letter , CVG FO rep's letters together and you start to get a little better picture:

• E190 deposits already made, you don't have to allow more CR9s to get them.
  .
• The positive letters from Reps about the TA, in the view of the CVG FO rep, don't match the actual TA language.
  .
• This TA is really the Delta Connection Emancipation Proclamation from the MEC. No more 900sm restriction on 85% of the flights, free to do hub-to-hub and point-to-point thus no longer required to feed mainline, transferring flying to more profitable 76-seaters that are 51% larger and fly 10% faster to make up for a 2% seat count reduction.
  .
• JV protection now uses block hour and drops it to a 50% baseline, a metric the company would have been in compliance with the last 4 years whereas with EASKs they were out of compliance.
  .
• JV language will allow Delta to down gauge our aircraft while JV partners up gauge.
  .
• Mike Donatelli gets to decide whether we slap Delta livery, logos, etc on a foreign carrier.
  .
• Pay is not 8633 and 15% over the life of the contact but really 8.26% over three years given inflation eats up the remaining 3%.
  .
• Removing LCA trips from FOs removes 135 trips the FOs would have been able to bid on when you consider 45 LCA x 4 trips per month = 180 trips x 85% = 135 trips gone.

300SMK

Ouch !!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

GivemeVSP

Please recall section 3.B.4 will continue to give us pay raises aligned with American and United... about 3% per year through 2018.

And we get to keep our LCA trip drops, and our current profit sharing (for all employees), and our SCOPE (which they are not in compliance with and more grievances to come)

The threat of being parked by the NMB is just a scare tactic...

What harm is there in shooting this thing down, or being parked by the NMB?

Denny Crane

I have absolutely no problem with the way guys/gals vote as long as they have considered the ramifications of the whole package. For me the JV Scope is a huge gaping hole. That along with the more draconian sick leave and the LCA trip pull is enough to drive my no vote. There's a lot more little stuff that I don't like too. These along with a raise that I think is in adequate and funded by PS to boot.

Obviously YMMV!. No Guts, No Glory!

Denny

RockyBoy

That has got to be just for one ATL category. There has got to be a couple hundred LCA in all the categories at Delta. I've heard this alone saved them 300 pilots.

With the PS savings this will generate, it will be a cost savings deal for the company.

RockyBoy

No reroute pay after 4 hours, no extra 15 minutes a day for vacation and CQ, and NO extra nickel in per diem. DON'T VOTE THIS DOWN!

There is NOTHING in this agreement that makes it worth a YES vote. It makes C2012 look like a gold mine.

SOFA

We've never been in a position of having more leverage than now. Record profits, high load factors, growth and an inevitable pilot shortage. Why did we have a group of unprepared negotiators going to the table? Who invited whom to an early signing, and why? Sworn to secrecy, I'm sure they know; however, it is not justifiable to step into the pitch for a walk when we submit surveys to swing for the fence. We all know that the focus was on the profit sharing would be on the table as indicated by the investors, but to rape the work rules and JV language is a slap in the face. When SD told us at the C2012 meeting that a yes vote would mean new hires by the end of the CY, that was either a lie or naivety, but we didn't see hiring for over a year. Now we pay for the company's dilemma of training setbacks with sick leave and 23G concessions?! Not our fault. We funded a portion of our pay raises with a concession on PS in 2012 (that concession was implemented company-wide). Now we are asked to do it again. Our vote changes PS for the whole company as we saw in 2012, so we're not just talking about the 1/3rd of PS that goes to us, but the other 2/3rd that goes to the rest. What is that going to fund? Cost neutral, or a huge gain for the investors and execs? We have the leverage and time. Let C2012 stay in place until it hurts. The MEC is using scare tactics in their language to prevent this, but there is something else out there that is causing this rush to early signing that we may not know. The table is still there. We have time. For anyone voting yes because of the contracted money, find some principle. I could make a lot more money than this as a male prostitute, but out of principle, I won't allow myself to be violated just for some quick cash. For those that are yes voters on the way out just looking for the boost in pay and not worried about the sick leave and look-back rules, think about this: you were probably prior military and left for whatever reason. I bet when you left, you still had a sense of ownership of your corps (the ones you left and probably trained to replace you to hold the line). The whole industry is watching us on this one, so we need to be good custodians and do the right thing. If we fail at this one, we will set the course for degrading our role at the pointy end of the spear. We all have a story of the time when we "saved the day." One mishap can cost the company hundreds of millions, so what are you worth? Heck NO, and we'll let you know when we're ready to come back to the table. This is not the time to give up our work rules and save the company from the troubled times of record profits. And, no, I wasn't here when the guys/gals gave up so much to keep the company going, but I am going to be a good custodian of the principle for which they did.

HOLD THE LINE! (and communicate this everywhere we can, clock is ticking).

MtEverest

Well said. Just a suggestion...breaking your points up into several paragraphs makes it easier to read on smart phones etc. Thanks for taking the time to weigh in!

DeadHead

No apology needed.

It's hard to see the future clearly when you viewpoint is shortsighted and stymied with ulterior motives.