gloopy

Agree, our T&V pay AND CREDIT still suck. Badly.

Medical merely needs a SWA "me-too" pilot plan option and a MSP "me too" clause for all as well.

I wouldn't be against an annuity, but you can't pull money out of thin air. Annuities are largely interest based and there's zero interest right now. It would be an impossible time to get that, unless you wanted a REALLY anemic benefit, or pay a REALLY high cost to get what you expect...but if we had the ability to get that, without it coming out of other areas, we could just raise all the other areas.

Per Diem does need to go up. For international, we need EK and other's per diem. Last I checked, its about 2-3 times more than what we get, and its paid in cash, which hopefully would help guys figure out that its actually expense money and not bring your own PBJ while you try to fund a 529 with your food money

BtoA

I still have not seen any evidence that this is a good deal for us. We get pay rates in line with UAL. Mediocre win. We get to keep RJ scope and PS (if they don't amp up the one-time charges); not a win at all but status quo. We get some very minor improvements in CQ and vacation (VERY MINOR THERE).

We get a long list of concessions that start with a huge SCOPE failure. VB job-killing. Lots of little gives in almost every section of the contract.

EDIT - I forgot PBS/PCS trips pulls. If you are below the top few percent in category, you will lose a lot of opportunity to improve your schedule because of trip pulls from open time.

NET QOL LOSS - big. Plenty of fail to go around and affect almost every single pilot here.

NET GAIN - industry-standard wages (not even a big bump over our peers that they can use to pattern off of. We barely even trigger their me-too clause).

Scoop

Is this a perfect deal - No. Is it a great deal - for some maybe. Is it a good deal - yes.

This is all opinion obviously, but here is my thinking:

We are still coming off a lost decade as far as Pilot compensation and QOL go. We will not get everything back in one perfect contract. Hopefully each contract will build on the previous.

A lot of guys are saying that if we don't get a perfect contract now, in this environment, we will be screwed forever. I disagree. I think we may possibly have had more leverage for C2000, when apparently the threat of a strike was greater. Well in C2000 we gave up a lot of stuff, including about 500 RJs, a bunch of scheduling stuff etc.

I think our real leverage comes from market forces. Supply and demand for Pilots will have the greatest impact on our leverage. Everything points to this leverage increasing - good for us.

I was 100% against the first TA but I am very much in favor of this TA.

I am really surprised of guys complaining that we are barely getting industry average rates and using UAL as a comparison. We could all get $1000/hour and UAL would still match us as they have a "Me too" clause.

Besides UAL matching us will help us tremendously in the next cycle as they enter negotiations prior to us. We are above AMR rates before PS is even added in.

As to all the QOL issues, yes we are making concessions. but I think some guys are purposefully overplaying the impact that they will have for other reasons. None of these concessions are as toxic as the first TA and some are not even an issue. VB can be unilaterally pulled down - I think we will keep it.

To me the value of protecting every single job loss loses value when we are hiring in record numbers. Is it worth protecting 50 future Piloting jobs if trading 50 future jobs can enhance QOL for 1000 current DAL Pilots?

I mean 4 month Captains - it does not appear that we have stagnation issues.

Bottom line: This is not a perfect deal. We will never get that or even close. Our leverage comes from market forces which will continue to trend in our favor.

Scoop

MOTOJOE

Nothing is going to get fixed until next contract. This is a done deal. And from what I've heard and seen so far will pass by a land slide.

BtoA

The newest example of failed logic.

4 month captain == no stagnation.

I think there are many a captain on narrowbody aircraft that would disagree. And some senior FOs. The lack of desire for people to fly our small narrowbody aircraft is a point against that argument. Our narrowbody flying epitomizes the QOL failures in our contract. Most of the crappiest stuff QOL-wise affects the narrowbody guys the most; especially the junior guys. Throw in the worst base in our inventory, and you have a double whammy. So, I do not see the 4 month captains as an argument against stagnation. If guys wanted to be crappy narrowbody captains, they would be jumping on these jobs. The jobs they want are the widebody jobs. Look how much more senior a WB FO goes than a NB captain. Even in dreaded NYC.

So, again, failure to protect our WB jobs with scope causes stagnation and is hurting us as a group. Do I want to fly as a NB captain as a 3rd year FO, sure. Do I want to still be a NB captain as I get to the end of my career? No.

waldo135

Maybe....or maybe it's all about the money. How many FOs make more than CA due to our PWA. I have many friends at other airlines. The ability to make serious money as an FO at Delta is the ONLY reason our seniority list is the way it is. AA and UA have crappy bases the no one wants, but they don't have the super senior FOs like we do. You're lying to yourself if you think it's anything but the $$$. Doesn't fit the current rant cycle, but it's the truth.

Sink r8

I think that's exactly how pilots vote. It's actually very normal for new pilots to see it differently, because in their previous life they probably had some money, and some contract, but neither was great.

Right now, the money is good, and the advancement looks eye-watering, so the money looks like a secondary issue. You're going to be moving up either across the pay scale, or up an airplane, or up a seat, for 12 years. And you can't even imagine downturns, or displacements. Black swans don't scare you.

Most everyone else is at the top of the pay table, and seeing the chances to maximize W-2's go right through payrates. We also know that not only is it about the money, but who gets the money. I find it very positive that the old guys are not trying to shift too much their way, but that's not guaranteed to stay that way either. Think POS 96.

gloopy

The days of the elites in the old guard running the show are over. We're becoming a hyper junior airline, and will forever be light on large wide body flying compared to our peers. Yes I know, the 76/75 pays wide body rates...which are really only a few bucks more than the 737, so maybe that's a wide body too?

This was the last contract possible to skew things for the top tier, and love it or hate it, it appears to at least be fairly well distributed. Even going so far as to finally, for the first time in ages if not ever, ending the endless growth surge of large RJ's.

Sink r8

The days of watching out for the old guards are not over, and the environment sets the context. And history informs us as to the sort of shenanigans that get pulled (B-scales, The Matrix that existed both at Delta and NW, etc.).

I don't think you would see guys being as naïve as they were in 1996, but desperate people do desperate things. I think there are enough people around that might want to grab a chunk of money on their way out, under the guise of some pension change (probably not a DB, but some weird targeted plan, or some annuity, or even a really oddly-time early-retirement plan). As we get younger, their window closes, but we're not there yet.

I know I'm probably being a bit machiavellian here, but there is a reason we still read the guy: human nature is mostly constant.

I think there will be more of a need to be involved, and get very, very interested in the quality of our representation going forward, not less. One thing I totally agree with BtoA (and others) on is that we'll need to supervise VB and specially TDY) closely.

MrBojangles

The pay is Ok, but the scope and sick leave bother me. The WB ALV increase seems like it will cut a few jobs also, but I need to look into that more. I'll be voting no based on those sections.