CVG767A

It seems to me that Delta NEEDS profit sharing relief, and NEEDS productivity improvements. Few of us, however, need an 8% raise. An 8% raise isn't chump change, but it isn't a life-changing amount of money, either.

We have more control than you think.

Denny Crane

I agree with you.

Also, if the company does anything in his list, it's just going to add to deeper gulf between the pilots and the company. Question is: Does the company want to do that?

Denny

Check Essential

Wait a minute. If that's the logic then we should do just fine at the NMB.
Anderson and Bastian make what? $10 -$20 million. More if you count stock.
You're saying she has "sympathy" for them?

Linda should be anxious to help the pilots.

gloopy

This change doesn't help them staff more. It just helps them cover more flying with the staffing they have. Best case it reduces premium pay for the same net coverage, and worst case costs us jobs. All this does is spreads existing pilots around to cover the same flying for straight pay.

Days that are min now will still be min. This won't help you drop anything that you can't already drop. In fact, it will hurt lineholders and reserve's ability to drop weekends and holidays because it raises the mins relative to the same existing amount of flying. Excess above the mins is how you can drop. Raising those mins means even fewer pilots can trade away from the most likely days that they want.

gloopy

Yeah really. I read his post like 3 times and it came down to:

Vote yes on the TA and we cut hiring in half (at least for a while, which is already announced).

Vote no and we increase to 150 a month and fat staff every seat in category! Oh and we also keep a vastly superior sick policy, better JV language and watch as they try to recruit and staff all those E190 seats (that they are getting anyway) for the lowest pay in the nation, while at the same time trying to run DCI with 2% extra seats in all coach, hated 50 seaters that they can't staff anyway.

Um…

gloopy

As long as we're reasonable. And what's more reasonable that trying to give 100M back from a net cost amount the company has already agreed to?

We're not trying to get a bigger piece of the pie. We're only trying to shuffle around within an already agreed to amount, while reducing that amount 100M.

#reasonable

iceman49

So you are saying, don't even vote, just accept what management has and will present. Get the knee pads out and say "please sir can I have more"

trustbutverify

First, let's get away from the idea that any agreement would be a "reward" for the pilot group. More appropriate wording would be "compensated properly". I keep hearing the mantra, "it's just a business decision", and I agree. Part of doing good business requires HR policies that treat employees with dignity and respect. The sick policy in this TA falls well short of that. But that's only part of the problem. The TA as a whole does not compensate the pilot group appropriately for past sacrifices made by many senior pilots so that the Delta business could survive and provide the management team with the multimillion dollar annual salaries they enjoy - btw, what sacrifices did they make to get those salaries?

The TA also does not compensate properly for the slow but steady erosion of work rules and QOL that may be easy to miss because we as pilots are mission oriented and are focused on getting the job done, regardless of how thin the work rules stretch us. The union has done a lousy job of holding the line with FDP extensions and max block days to name just a couple of examples. In the rest of the business world, an 8 hour work day is the norm, and that's in jobs that don't have life and death implications for screwing up. For us on the other hand, it's ok to work more than 8 hours and to have crew days going to 16. And if we feel we can't safely extend to 16, we have to submit a written explanation in hopes of getting paid. That's not treating employees with dignity and respect.

So as I've stated earlier, I'm willing to draw the line against further erosion of the profession even if it means the monetary hits you suggest. Taking the insufficient money in this TA balanced against the QOL erosion that has occurred and will only get worse is a bad business decision.

forgot to bid

You mean, the NMB might not be a boogie man after all? Or if you will, a booger man after all?

That'd erase one of the two reasons to vote yes, leaving the only other reason to vote yes being an 8% raise.

forgot to bid

ERflyer, I found for you the main reason to vote yes and it's in this message from the UAL ALPA:

Did you see it?