Check Essential

-1

Ad hominem bovine excrement.

tsquare

Yeah.. probably.. but I don't hold him in the same esteem as a deep thinker as I once did... too many what ifs for me in his theories...

padre2992

So ACL, I really don't think you should be a no voter.

Industry leading rates 24 months and 1 day after the amendable date.
Scope that recaptures flying that increases by 18% our domestic flying.
Cash in your pocket that probably averages $1500/month.
Sick leave that gives you a margin above the current 14.F.1.a. and 15.B.1.c. language by 100 hours, and gets rid of the 75% pay.

The foundation is solid.

acl65pilot

Its critical thinking and what ifs that stress test any language. You need to read the next sentence I type which is most of what I am concerned with will not come in to play until farther down the road.

acl65pilot

The concepts for the most part are solid, but as I have stated I have issues with certain parts and the fine print. Added together I cannot see voting yes to this. Do not like the work rule changes and how it effects staffing negatively. No guarantee that if we do not get the early outs to a target number the work rule changes do not take effect The result will be more down grades unless DAL decides to eat it.

Industry leading strategically should be the amendable date, not day 912. That is exactly what our reps were saying less than a week before the TA as well.

The scope recapture works well if we could make DCI a accumulator from planned ratio not the one we have agreed to. There is a lot of flex there. We also needed to put limits on duration for these new jets. A follow on deal in 2015 seems likely.

tsquare

Yeah OK Mr Spassky. You are still playing what if games that are pure speculation on your part. But whatever makes you feel good. It still doesn't change my opinion of the deterioration of your skills as a dot connector.. You are making up dots now to connect.

forgot to bid

As long as nobody else gets a pay raise in the next 24 months, right?

80ktsClamp

Those industry leading pay rates.... You mean to say that we would lead the industry in 2012 if our 2015 pay rates were in 2012, right??

How about W-2s? I'd much prefer to have an industry leading W-2.

The idea of much of the stuff in the TA is good... it is a terribly shoddy foundation that made it into the TA, though.

buzzpat

C'mon T. I love and respect you. I'm not sure how I'm going to vote. Please tone it down a bit.

acl65pilot

T,
I fully admit that my projections down the road are 100% pure speculation. They have not happened, and may not happen. I am stating what would be contractually allowed given the language.

You should ask yourself why I of all people am willing to send this back? Doesn't makes sense eh? You always think I have more info than I am sharing. I can tell you that even if you want to call it all speculation, its based on some good logic.

All I am really willing to put out there is that this TA is the hurdle that the company needs to go over to start a series of events that will be really good for them, and possibly for us. It will make DAL the logical leader for a decade or more. This deal needs to be done first. Plan B that everyone states is without us, is not really without us. There are many parts of it that the company will look to us and ALPA for help with. They will need our help because the number of players is getting smaller. Our support is paramount. Plan be costs a lot more money and us much less preferred. Will they do that out of spite? Ask yourself a rhetorical question; Is this an emotional decision or a business decision based on number for them? I can tell ya that Plan A is a lot cheaper, and preferred by a long shot. At this point we have leverage. Going forward though two to four events and maybe one JPWA we end up at a point where the mergers are done and leverage without a lengthy time frame is gone.

The time to do this stuff is now. This TA basically will allow many things in a merger that we will not need to negotiate. In other words leverage will be lower than it is today.

If this is voted down, no one can promise with 100% certainty what path the company will take. I will not, but I will tell you that it will be a business decision, and a exercise on math. Given what I see a must fix; as well as others, it still going to be cheaper dealing with us that going with plan B. The scenario based posts I have made are merely a way to illustrate where the language could fail or where we set ourselves up to need to use future leverage that will effect the outcome in other areas.

The work rule changes are the most confusing if there is going to be a merger or acquisition where we take pilots. They will cost positions on the list because it will take less pilots for the same block hr plan. 30-60 minutes a month seems inconsequential, but when you multiply that by 10500 active line pilots, the number of less pilots needed starts to add up.

You do not have to believe me, and still may think I am "hanging it way out there." That is fine, but when you see me vary from my norm, and wonder why, use your logic and wonder what I see that is making me seeing a No vote as a choice based on decent logic and sound judgement. I do not post everything I know here contrary to popular belief. I just telling you what I see as issues with the TA, and the fact that this is the first step in many. That equates to leverage.

We can chose to use any leverage we have or we can vote yes, and take what is presented. I have one vote, but am explaining what I see much like you. I will move beyond this TA no matter what the decision is. Its one time that a trade unionist is allowed to think and speak freely.