The Many Reasons a Delta Captain Votes NO
06-11-2012, 07:13 AM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
Its not scraps, its just that when you thought you were getting a whole meal you look at the plate and realized the meat was missing.
400,000 is the year four number. 268 is apparently the year one number. Ask your reps what their min direction was after being time valued for an expedited process. I will bet you we fell 35-50% below that number. You cannot do that without the reps providing redirection; there wasn't any.
400,000 is the year four number. 268 is apparently the year one number. Ask your reps what their min direction was after being time valued for an expedited process. I will bet you we fell 35-50% below that number. You cannot do that without the reps providing redirection; there wasn't any.
What strategy will yield more?
400+ is the year 3 number, year two is about that "+" short of 400. The year one (plus the 6 month early bonus) is equal to about 400.
Who else is getting 1.2 billion in added value in 3.5 years without the NMB offering a proffer?
06-11-2012, 07:27 AM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Dismayed
Posts: 1,598
If the company had come with a 2/2/2/2 plan would that be ok, just to get something that our competitors don't have and we wouldn't have to get the NMB involved?
I think folks set an EFC or bingo fuel or whatever analogy you want to use as a measuring stick and the section 3 payrates didn't meet it. I think there are some really good things in this deal, and I think that there will be another TA or 2 this summer (we won't like the next one) and as ACL points out, it'll be the third one that passes. Unless, the company monitoring policy along with the DALPA nose counters (whip analogy) realize this one won't pass without a "sweetener".
I think folks set an EFC or bingo fuel or whatever analogy you want to use as a measuring stick and the section 3 payrates didn't meet it. I think there are some really good things in this deal, and I think that there will be another TA or 2 this summer (we won't like the next one) and as ACL points out, it'll be the third one that passes. Unless, the company monitoring policy along with the DALPA nose counters (whip analogy) realize this one won't pass without a "sweetener".
06-11-2012, 07:29 AM
#63
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Space Shuttle PIC
Posts: 2,007
Its not scraps, its just that when you thought you were getting a whole meal you look at the plate and realized the meat was missing.
400,000 is the year four number. 268 is apparently the year one number. Ask your reps what their min direction was after being time valued for an expedited process. I will bet you we fell 35-50% below that number. You cannot do that without the reps providing redirection; there wasn't any.
400,000 is the year four number. 268 is apparently the year one number. Ask your reps what their min direction was after being time valued for an expedited process. I will bet you we fell 35-50% below that number. You cannot do that without the reps providing redirection; there wasn't any.
Are you guessing that management will come back to renegotiate?
06-11-2012, 07:37 AM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 758
As far as pay rates go, I bet the company could come back with 5/10/5/5 and it would probably please most. Clasic strategy to come across with a low ball final offer just to bait guys into taking a second deal. Company would still come out good and pay well below restoration rates.
06-11-2012, 07:53 AM
#65
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
What's the cost, considering the number of 50 seaters already on the way out, to park 50 seaters down to RAs 150ish number without a swap for Bill Lumberg Profit Jets, aka 76 seaters?
06-11-2012, 08:22 AM
#66
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
They are selling dual class 71 seat Q400s like flapjacks. No one has said which 76 seat plane we are getting (the 70's hold 65).
06-11-2012, 08:30 AM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
He makes a good argument for no. But it does seem based on a savings to the company of 2 to 2.5 billion dollars. I won't argue the 2-2.5b figure what I will contest is that the figure is a "savings" to the company. In my mind, that money is going to be spent on either refurbishing the 50's or buying the 70 larger RJs (35m X 70=2.45b). Not going into the companys coffers. Either way it doesn't look like a savings to the company.
Can someone show me where I'm wrong?
Denny
Can someone show me where I'm wrong?
Denny
06-11-2012, 08:32 AM
#68
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
That's the thing. I don't think most are mad about Sec 1. They're mad about Sec 3. We turn it down, they toss some more money at us and all of a sudden it's ok.
06-11-2012, 08:35 AM
#69
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
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.
06-11-2012, 08:38 AM
#70
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Not too sure about that. There are many reps that realize that when they were presented section 1 it looked really good, but as they go in to the language in the ensuing weeks, they saw what we saw.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
