The Many Reasons a Delta Captain Votes NO
06-11-2012, 08:38 AM
#71
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: Nice while it lasted
Posts: 326
They are required to negotiate; they are not required to agree to anything.
However, you raise a good point. Ever since the merger us transplants have gotten a steady diet of the collaborative environment between ALPA and management (as opposed the the admittedly adversarial one at NWA). We are finally at a point where the rubber meets the road. Should this TA fail, we'll all find out if this tire has simply been rolling down a one-way road this whole time.
However, you raise a good point. Ever since the merger us transplants have gotten a steady diet of the collaborative environment between ALPA and management (as opposed the the admittedly adversarial one at NWA). We are finally at a point where the rubber meets the road. Should this TA fail, we'll all find out if this tire has simply been rolling down a one-way road this whole time.
06-11-2012, 08:41 AM
#72
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
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, 08:43 AM
#73
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
They are required to negotiate; they are not required to agree to anything.
However, you raise a good point. Ever since the merger us transplants have gotten a steady diet of the collaborative environment between ALPA and management (as opposed the the admittedly adversarial one at NWA). We are finally at a point where the rubber meets the road. Should this TA fail, we'll all find out if this tire has simply been rolling down a one-way road this whole time.
However, you raise a good point. Ever since the merger us transplants have gotten a steady diet of the collaborative environment between ALPA and management (as opposed the the admittedly adversarial one at NWA). We are finally at a point where the rubber meets the road. Should this TA fail, we'll all find out if this tire has simply been rolling down a one-way road this whole time.
06-11-2012, 08:52 AM
#74
Kerbal Rocket Surgeon
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DTW 717A
Posts: 1,099
How about 3 years from now? Thats a bit more plausible.
Oh, check this out:
"This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." -Barack Obama
06-11-2012, 08:52 AM
#75
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
So since a 3 year renegotiation period is fine with you, what would your acceptable pay increase be at the end of that period? Cue Jack Bauer to post his stupid little picture.. but I am not interested in addressing the rest of your rant at this time. Just tell me what amount you would find acceptable.
Its not just about pay for me T. I would expect retro, and would vote no in three years if there wasn't any.
As for what I would find acceptable in three years, time value what the reps time valued for direction this time around. It does not have to be 30-40% with retro. For me its about a solid agreement that includes good raises. Its part of the deal not all of it.
06-11-2012, 08:57 AM
#76
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Its not just about pay for me T. I would expect retro, and would vote no in three years if there wasn't any.
As for what I would find acceptable in three years, time value what the reps time valued for direction this time around. It does not have to be 30-40% with retro. For me its about a solid agreement that includes good raises. Its part of the deal not all of it.
As for what I would find acceptable in three years, time value what the reps time valued for direction this time around. It does not have to be 30-40% with retro. For me its about a solid agreement that includes good raises. Its part of the deal not all of it.
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.
06-11-2012, 09:01 AM
#77
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
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.
This agreement is solid as a rock.
This agreement is solid as a rock.
Personally, I'm totally fine with going the section 6 route if that's what it takes to get it right. We may miss out on some time value of money (talk about a sales pitch line...), but the benefits to the career would be priceless.
06-11-2012, 09:04 AM
#78
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
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.
It is not solid as a rock. Scope still makes us the accumulator and leaves a few of the flanks open.
I also disagree with your premise that we will not recapture any of it.
My personal opinion is that the company wanted this done for a reason, and even if this is turned down on July 1, they still have adequate time to fix it before we go to traditional talks. If we do more to traditional talks, so be it, but it will not take three years. I would at most expect a few months with this the framework they have already done. Too much work and progress to walk away from. You can disagree, and you do I do not mind the debate.
06-11-2012, 09:07 AM
#79
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
It is not solid as a rock. Scope still makes us the accumulator and leaves a few of the flanks open.
I also disagree with your premise that we will not recapture any of it.
My personal opinion is that the company wanted this done for a reason, and even if this is turned down on July 1, they still have adequate time to fix it before we go to traditional talks. If we do more to traditional talks, so be it, but it will not take three years. I would at most expect a few months with this the framework they have already done. Too much work and progress to walk away from. You can disagree, and you do I do not mind the debate.
I also disagree with your premise that we will not recapture any of it.
My personal opinion is that the company wanted this done for a reason, and even if this is turned down on July 1, they still have adequate time to fix it before we go to traditional talks. If we do more to traditional talks, so be it, but it will not take three years. I would at most expect a few months with this the framework they have already done. Too much work and progress to walk away from. You can disagree, and you do I do not mind the debate.
06-11-2012, 09:10 AM
#80
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
It is not solid as a rock. Scope still makes us the accumulator and leaves a few of the flanks open.
I also disagree with your premise that we will not recapture any of it.
My personal opinion is that the company wanted this done for a reason, and even if this is turned down on July 1, they still have adequate time to fix it before we go to traditional talks. If we do more to traditional talks, so be it, but it will not take three years. I would at most expect a few months with this the framework they have already done. Too much work and progress to walk away from. You can disagree, and you do I do not mind the debate.
I also disagree with your premise that we will not recapture any of it.
My personal opinion is that the company wanted this done for a reason, and even if this is turned down on July 1, they still have adequate time to fix it before we go to traditional talks. If we do more to traditional talks, so be it, but it will not take three years. I would at most expect a few months with this the framework they have already done. Too much work and progress to walk away from. You can disagree, and you do I do not mind the debate.
The debate is boring, and the what if scenarios that are now emerging are ridiculous and thin. We can what if every TA to death. The phenomena is called "analysis to paralysis", and leads to never achieving anything. Yours are all becoming just more of the same which is what is surprising to me.
Anyway.. if you see The Manager.. tell him I have been axing about him.. (yes.. I know I used the word "axing")
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
