Columbia

And that right there, ladies and germs, is the fear card that will be wielded throughout the next month of "unbiased" roadshows. Trust them, vote it down and the ONLY option will be 3+ years of protracted negotiations with the nmb lady putting us on ice. Just look at American? We're in the same position as they are.

johnso29

How about United/Continental? UsAir/America West? Look how long it took Pinnacle. Look how long it took TranStates.

acl65pilot

Yes, I saw that term in the definitions part of the contract. This term has been used for the last few years for a few other parts of the PWA. Wrt to this MBH scenario, we cutout the Domestic hrs for the ratio. A tsunami is out of the control of the company but will more than likely effect the international operations, and as a result the economy of a foreign nation state. The Euro Zone crisis has and may continue to effect international traffic and the need to fly international lift. You could argue that both of these are the economy. It comes down to a scenario that insurance companies used after Katrina. They claimed the water destroyed the house, but you claimed it was wind damage which you were protected for. They claim it was the water, which is not specifically stated in the declarations page. In the end it goes to court, and your house(our protections, flying and ratios) are still in need of repair.

My concern is the word "economy" in the definitions section is vague in nature. I ask, what economy, world, domestic, or any specific region? Does the term cover all of that. What was the intent begin the term definition? Was it to cover AD's or a grounding of jets only? What was and is the understanding of this definition by the company and the association?

The whole airline and its operation is intertwined and as a result MBH(domestic) and MBH(international) are also intertwined. The section 1 language is for domestic feed which is influenced on the need to feed international departures. A better understanding of what the word "economy" meant to the negotiators and the company at the time of conception, and now if there is a new understanding would really help.

Also, in this definition wrt to this new ratio, nor in the rest of the document, I did not see anything that would hold DAL Airlines, Holdings et al, responsible for omissions in the newly minted or modified agreements that would preclude a pull down of DCI lift due to breach of that new CPA.

Not trying to be a pain here, really, but language in the current agreement has left DALPA unable to legally remedy a few situations in the last few years.


-------

On another section 1 concern:

Why are we allowing the DPJ large biz jets back in that we filed a grievance over? As far as I know there was only rumor out there that DAL agreed to cease and desist using these aircraft, but there was no formal announcement of the end state of this agreement. Was there? and if so, why are we allowing them now? Did we get a barging credit for this?

One last item in section 1:

Wrt to JV's the term "profit/loss agreement is used to define the need for a production balance. The definition reads:

means an agreement or arrangement in which the Company or an Company affiliate
37 in the economic performance of one or more other carriers and/or of its or
38 their affiliate or affiliates, through incremental revenue sharing or the sharing of
39 profits or losses in connection with the Company’s and the other carrier or carriers’
40 carriage of passengers. An agreement or arrangement that constitutes an
41 industry standard interline agreement, a codeshare agreement with a carrier
42 engaged in international partner flying in which there is no sharing in the economic
43 performance of the carrier’s flying through incremental revenue sharing or the
44 sharing of profits or losses, a prorate agreement, a sales/super commission
45 agreement, the Hawaiian and Alaska marketing agreements, and an arrangement
between the Company and any Company affiliate and one or more Delta Connection
2 Carriers is not a profit/loss sharing agreement.

What concerns me here is this:
If we enter in to a JV agreement with a carrier that is foreign government owned, or is heavily influenced by a foreign government, they may not desire to enter in to a traditional JV from the revenue sharing standpoint. They may decide to seek the JV for schedule and pricing abilities but want the financial side to more mirror a interline and or code share agreement. There will be no sharing of revenue. The revenue gained would be from what each side flew, and a finders feed to the booking airline. We would coordinate schedules and pricing but still incentiveize each airline to fly their own lift. Now I know this is not the purest form of a JV where its truly metal neutral, but its a possibility with airlines like KAL, JAL and EK, China Eastern or Southern, and it may be all DAL can get. With this language, there is no trigger for a production production balance.

Now I know you are going to tell me that this scenario is very unlikely, but that is not what I am asking. What I am asking is, is this scenario protected by the definition when the last sentence in the definition basically states that these are not considered profit loss. The only reason I am hitting the definition and not the actual JV production trigger language is because it centers around this definition.

Reality is we need a JV partner in Asia, and the playing field is currently taken expect KAL. It has been continually stated that KAL undercuts our NRT hub, and because of this, I do not see them agreeing to a JV in the traditional context. I see more of a CS type revenue scheme under the moniker of a JV.

Could we be setting ourselves up? Honest question.

acl65pilot

With a planned of 1.76:1 there will be growth from the 717's. Why did we not up it a little closer to that ratio then.

The profit/loss definition was an expansion designed to capture any form of JV flying.[/QUOTE]

I have not been on here much, and did not see it in the thread I posted it so I asked it again.

Its been a few days since I read the TA in its entirety, so answer me this.

If we shrink necessitating DCI to shrink, they can park 50's to get in compliance correct? They are not required to park the new 76 seaters, as long as they are in the compliance with the ratio, correct?

slowplay

If Delta was worried about "hefty profits" (isn't that a good thing?) wouldn't they have gone after the 20% number? That wasn't even discussed.

A 4% pay raise (second half of this year) is worth over $40 million during the 6 months that it is paid, and this year's (2012) profit sharing is still paid at 15%. That's additional cost prior to the amendable date of our current agreement with no profit sharing savings. For 2013, the maximum reduction in profit sharing is about $42 million. The 2013 pay increase is about $260 million. Again, for any profit less than $2.5 billion that $42 million is reduced.

Last year's profit was based on just over 3% PTIX margin. Since 2001 Delta has had positive PTIX in just 3 of the 11 years averaging 3.7% margin. Compare that to C2K, where in the 5 years leading up to the agreement Delta average over 8% PTIX margin, and in 1998 we had a 12% PTIX margin. In the 5 years leading up to C2K Delta had earned over $7billion pre-tax. In the 5 years leading up to C2012 Delta has earned $1.1billion pre-tax.

I agree. I am weary of this discussion!

The process agreement for this negotiation allows either party to return to the beginning of Section 6 should the process not result in a new contract.

Can you show me an example where Delta has "sweetened it a little" in any negotiation? I see our JCBA and LGA slot swaps where the deals got worse over time. I look at Delta's management of DCI contracts and the results for those carriers and don't see much sweetening. What is your belief that it will be sweetened based upon?

Free Bird

That's exactly what we have been doing. I used to laugh when I would fly with guys who told me that in 10 years this airline would have 8000 pilots. This TA is yet another step towards needing fewer pilots imo.

Give me the TA scope with the 255 70/76 seat RJ's and we're getting close.

Columbia

Has their management or wall street (smart money) also said that they are in the best position in the industry and are forecasting to make billions in profits going forward?

acl65pilot

That is the million or in our case billion dollar question. A few facts are:

We have a comprehensive TA that is out to the pilots. It was done in two months, and there are some major efficiencies gained for the company in it.

We could both dump the agreement and start over. True, but why would we after all of the progress over a few definitions and maybe a couple hundred million in valuation? I know I wouldn't.

We also forget that if this thing gets turned down, however likely or not, the current PWA states that the company and the association will exchange openers in 270 days from the amendable date.

With this fact, if it fails, I would fully expect DALPA to go back with a list of items that need to be tweaked in the current agreement to reach a TA. It could and should be considered our opener for the traditional process if it followed exactly where we were on the survey. If the company would not take that, DALPA is smart enough to have a second document with traditional section 6 needs.

Once seeing that, and the company evaluates the cost and time value of the savings they get in this TA, I would be very surprised to see them NOT reengage. Again, that is their choice and it is unknown. Logic needs to prevail though.

C20 Chair TT stated that the reduced MEMRAT window was dual driven. First, so that the pay goes in to effect on July 1 if it passes and more importantly, Two, that there is more time to negotiate if need be.

Now you all know that I look for the anomaly in the data, and that is it. My hunch is the reps are aware there is a timeline, and maybe aware of a go date for DAL. Even if they aren't they seem to be aware that there is time before the second step of DAL's business plan to get this right and planned accordingly.

Columbia

But show us where management sweetened the deal after the TA was voted down. Never before in history. . Which that logic, why do we even need a representative to negotiate for us? Good post, btw.

Cogf16

Completely agree. It's convenient to accept something like this from the company as fact and yet not believe anything that comes from the MEC or NC. Campbell is playing to Wall Street and the other employee groups. Clearly this contract is costing the company money and putting money in our pocket. But I think you know this. Ask yourself why they would risk our No vote on this (and possibly endanger their biz plan going forward) if what they are offering costs them NOTHING???? Do you really beieve this???