The Many Reasons a Delta Captain Votes NO
06-12-2012, 07:16 PM
#171
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
It's a bad sign when pilots refer to their vote by reciting emergency action items!
06-12-2012, 08:30 PM
#172
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Depends Ferd. No guarantees we will merge. I agree it's a good chance but if it's not HAA or ALK and parts we may not need a new TA.
)
06-12-2012, 09:40 PM
#173
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
AA is already stating they are interested in AK and B6 (maybe trying to deflect the USAir attempt). Still, they are looking at it, which probably causes others to maybe look at it.
06-12-2012, 10:21 PM
#174
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: Big ones
Posts: 785
Bill, yes, and at a min we have to trade traditional openers for Section 6, but there are bigger things out there that Plan A, and B have in them. The DCI changes are the items DAL needs to go forward with their significantly cheaper choices. A few hundred million is not worth what they want to do. Honestly, with what I see within this agreement, I do not care how long it takes to get it right. I am not willing to vote yes for an agreement that even though it has great concepts, falls short in the protection department. Why would I not vote for something that could be renegotiated by the time any of it really matters you ask?
Well, I do not want to spend negotiating capital in three, four, five years on things we can fix today. We need to build a PWA and section 1 that plans for worst case, this TA does not.
In this agreement the ratios do not have a one way check valve allowing say a 3-4% swing in mainline domestic block hrs before DCI also takes the hit. The current set up/ratio versus the plan is 1.56-1 versus 1.76-1. That's a lot of slop in mainline flying, and may in fact be your capt job.
In this agreement, the JV protection is a great step. I wanted this very badly, but it gave us revenue sharing on top of profit loss. It does not define a pro rate or other type of revenue agreement that could be used under a JV. How about a CS type revenue stream with a nation state airline that we apply for jv protection with? Yep, not covered. The exclusion clauses in the definition of profit/loss are telling. Do it once and do it right.
In this agreement holding company protections were gained, another thing I have been strongly pushing for, for the last few year. The cutout is not tight enough. It needs to be very spelled out and its not.
Where is transnational merger protection?
We are allowing 70 more large rj's for a quid that I do not see as balanced. Its that simple. I do not see a road map that gets us to where we want to be. I see us kicking the football and real fight down the road to another type of agreement that mirrors this for the remainder of the 50's and the 70's. After that I see massive retirements and a situation where DAL will not be able to keep up with the international growth and domestic backfilling. This is where the 100 seat battle with happen. A sunset clause or disciplined pulldown of DCI does this, and its not there.
Looking at the Section 1 language, and the history of modifying this language right as we hit the scope limits; like we did with the furlough protections allowance of more RJ's, like we are doing now, I see us doing it again right at the 70th RJ is on property. Whether or not this language is a set up for an acquisition of an airline with large rj's or and outright purchase, a merger puts us even higher above these ratios and makes mainline block hrs that much more the initial accumulator. The news reports are stating that the Bombardier production line is closing down, if we are not going to get the RJ's from them, how are we going to renegotiate these CPA's? Could this just be a lesson in how other airlines are going to remove their large RJ sublift and we take it over, or is this a set up for a merger? Who has large RJ's and who has large RJ's that are could or are being dumped by other airlines though CH11 or contract expiration? The whole thing is very interesting.
Section 1 needs to stand alone, and frankly it doesn't.
Moving to the rest of the agreement we all agree, pay is not where it needs to be, we are giving up headcount with a likely merger or acquisition that may or may not come with pilots in the next year or two, reroute was not covered, reserves still are not getting paid like line holders, nor are they getting rotation guarantee; which would nullify the reserve changes, the commuter clause was not made contractual, retirement contributions are not enough, the sick leave policy though improved has some clearing up on release of medical records, and many more.
Of those:
I cannot figure out why we are giving up staffing going in to a likely period of further consolidation. That will effect many if not all pilots on the list. 3-4 seats in each category in each base, does add up. Its short sighted imo.
On the change to allow reserves to fly to ALV+15, it is now stated that this is for international categories. Well every category except the 9 flies internationally. Of course they mean ones with longer trips. My issue is if this was the idea, then make it for specific categories. The way its written, a reserve "may not fly" to 99 hrs but they will be on the hook for it. That means sitting SC's that you may have not sat, more rotations broken up to keep this on reserves versus gs's etc. Saying it will not mean more work for a reserve from today or year past when we were correctly staffed is not accurate. Scheduling is getting really good at layering reserves. Add these new components to it, and its changes the game. We vote this in, and we will learn very quickly what these changes will do to your home qol, never mind a sli.
Are we still at a point in time where reserves should not have rotation guarantee? I do not think so. I have been in reserve most of the last five years, and I can tell you that even when above ALV a reroute or cancellation costs you money. It has me. Rotation guarantee is very important.
The CDA of 4+30 basically does not force the company in to constructing more efficient trips. It means more of the same, with a few rotations getting a little more pay. The industry avg of 6 forces that. Furthermore, it should be a min day. If they want me to sit for 30 hrs in RIC and fly my tush off for the other three days, that's their call, we should make more money for that.
How about vacation pay of time and a half. Other employee groups and airlines get it, and this would solve a huge issue with staffing over holidays.
Suffice to say, minimum things were omitted in this expedited process. It was a change to fix a lot and keep moving forward. Problem is there are a ton of quid in this agreement. In section 1 the quid are not worth what the pro quo is. It is apparent that the company values these RJ's a lot more than we do. Its a mistake. In the rest of the agreement, we gave and got here and there, but its still a net negative.
I will not even discuss pay profit sharing or retirement expect to say that more DC is a great way for the company to compensate us more without paying all of the taxes they do on our wages.
I am willing to take however long it takes to get this better nailed down. Voting for this guarantees negotiating capital will need to be used in the future to fix a bunch of it. I have looked at this agreement for the better part of the month to find a way to vote yes for it; I can't and will be casting a vote to reengage the company and fix the 20-30 items that need to be made right. If that takes three years(it will not) so be it.
Well, I do not want to spend negotiating capital in three, four, five years on things we can fix today. We need to build a PWA and section 1 that plans for worst case, this TA does not.
In this agreement the ratios do not have a one way check valve allowing say a 3-4% swing in mainline domestic block hrs before DCI also takes the hit. The current set up/ratio versus the plan is 1.56-1 versus 1.76-1. That's a lot of slop in mainline flying, and may in fact be your capt job.
In this agreement, the JV protection is a great step. I wanted this very badly, but it gave us revenue sharing on top of profit loss. It does not define a pro rate or other type of revenue agreement that could be used under a JV. How about a CS type revenue stream with a nation state airline that we apply for jv protection with? Yep, not covered. The exclusion clauses in the definition of profit/loss are telling. Do it once and do it right.
In this agreement holding company protections were gained, another thing I have been strongly pushing for, for the last few year. The cutout is not tight enough. It needs to be very spelled out and its not.
Where is transnational merger protection?
We are allowing 70 more large rj's for a quid that I do not see as balanced. Its that simple. I do not see a road map that gets us to where we want to be. I see us kicking the football and real fight down the road to another type of agreement that mirrors this for the remainder of the 50's and the 70's. After that I see massive retirements and a situation where DAL will not be able to keep up with the international growth and domestic backfilling. This is where the 100 seat battle with happen. A sunset clause or disciplined pulldown of DCI does this, and its not there.
Looking at the Section 1 language, and the history of modifying this language right as we hit the scope limits; like we did with the furlough protections allowance of more RJ's, like we are doing now, I see us doing it again right at the 70th RJ is on property. Whether or not this language is a set up for an acquisition of an airline with large rj's or and outright purchase, a merger puts us even higher above these ratios and makes mainline block hrs that much more the initial accumulator. The news reports are stating that the Bombardier production line is closing down, if we are not going to get the RJ's from them, how are we going to renegotiate these CPA's? Could this just be a lesson in how other airlines are going to remove their large RJ sublift and we take it over, or is this a set up for a merger? Who has large RJ's and who has large RJ's that are could or are being dumped by other airlines though CH11 or contract expiration? The whole thing is very interesting.
Section 1 needs to stand alone, and frankly it doesn't.
Moving to the rest of the agreement we all agree, pay is not where it needs to be, we are giving up headcount with a likely merger or acquisition that may or may not come with pilots in the next year or two, reroute was not covered, reserves still are not getting paid like line holders, nor are they getting rotation guarantee; which would nullify the reserve changes, the commuter clause was not made contractual, retirement contributions are not enough, the sick leave policy though improved has some clearing up on release of medical records, and many more.
Of those:
I cannot figure out why we are giving up staffing going in to a likely period of further consolidation. That will effect many if not all pilots on the list. 3-4 seats in each category in each base, does add up. Its short sighted imo.
On the change to allow reserves to fly to ALV+15, it is now stated that this is for international categories. Well every category except the 9 flies internationally. Of course they mean ones with longer trips. My issue is if this was the idea, then make it for specific categories. The way its written, a reserve "may not fly" to 99 hrs but they will be on the hook for it. That means sitting SC's that you may have not sat, more rotations broken up to keep this on reserves versus gs's etc. Saying it will not mean more work for a reserve from today or year past when we were correctly staffed is not accurate. Scheduling is getting really good at layering reserves. Add these new components to it, and its changes the game. We vote this in, and we will learn very quickly what these changes will do to your home qol, never mind a sli.
Are we still at a point in time where reserves should not have rotation guarantee? I do not think so. I have been in reserve most of the last five years, and I can tell you that even when above ALV a reroute or cancellation costs you money. It has me. Rotation guarantee is very important.
The CDA of 4+30 basically does not force the company in to constructing more efficient trips. It means more of the same, with a few rotations getting a little more pay. The industry avg of 6 forces that. Furthermore, it should be a min day. If they want me to sit for 30 hrs in RIC and fly my tush off for the other three days, that's their call, we should make more money for that.
How about vacation pay of time and a half. Other employee groups and airlines get it, and this would solve a huge issue with staffing over holidays.
Suffice to say, minimum things were omitted in this expedited process. It was a change to fix a lot and keep moving forward. Problem is there are a ton of quid in this agreement. In section 1 the quid are not worth what the pro quo is. It is apparent that the company values these RJ's a lot more than we do. Its a mistake. In the rest of the agreement, we gave and got here and there, but its still a net negative.
I will not even discuss pay profit sharing or retirement expect to say that more DC is a great way for the company to compensate us more without paying all of the taxes they do on our wages.
I am willing to take however long it takes to get this better nailed down. Voting for this guarantees negotiating capital will need to be used in the future to fix a bunch of it. I have looked at this agreement for the better part of the month to find a way to vote yes for it; I can't and will be casting a vote to reengage the company and fix the 20-30 items that need to be made right. If that takes three years(it will not) so be it.
Like ACL, I have an eye on the 30 year plan at DAL. In that timeframe, I see more M&A activity -- not only here but across the pax industry. The timeline may be pretty fast, like the next 2-5 years. While smaller-end scope is of some concern today, I'm also looking for higher-end scope protections in case we start down the road of transnational and state-sponsored JV's.
This TA addresses the issue but doesn't provide enough protections to the pilot group, imo. The protections I was looking for are either: 1) enough of a payraise to handle the stagnation we'd face or 2) language to capture revenues, or some sort of income, for the pilot group if we make a poor JV choice.
The lack of both are reason enough to vote no, even if it means I spend some time on the street to get it right.
06-13-2012, 05:10 PM
#175
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: Big ones
Posts: 785
Heh. Nothing like being late to the party...back to listening and not speaking.
06-13-2012, 05:43 PM
#176
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
It's not just about pay with me either. The scope in the TA is a great deal. There are other holes, but pay is far from being one of them. But it will be if voted down.. We will not recapture what we are turning down if it takes more than 1 year to renegotiate, and even then I don't think it will be achievable. And a no vote in 3 years for no retro would kick the ball further down the field.. that is a GUARANTEE that we will never beat this TA.
This agreement is solid as a rock.
This agreement is solid as a rock.
Carl
06-13-2012, 06:00 PM
#178
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Right Seat 744
Posts: 946
06-13-2012, 06:17 PM
#180
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Bingo Sink,
This company has spent too much time and resources keeping other unions off the property to just let us tweak this "extension" (let's call it what it is). The company won't let other groups see that kind of flexibility. Section 6 it will be.
If Section 6 ok, say it. Quit this throw it back on the burner "stuff". Ain't gonna happen.
Ferd
This company has spent too much time and resources keeping other unions off the property to just let us tweak this "extension" (let's call it what it is). The company won't let other groups see that kind of flexibility. Section 6 it will be.
If Section 6 ok, say it. Quit this throw it back on the burner "stuff". Ain't gonna happen.
Ferd
They know our process as well as we do. They know full well that a NO vote is possible. Thus, they would have been FOOLISH to give us their real bottom line on the first try. We'll be even more foolish if we take it.
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
