The Many Reasons a Delta Captain Votes NO
06-11-2012, 09:12 AM
#81
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
No.. I am growing weary of this debate. You are especially surprising to me, but.. whatever. I am still waiting for The Manager to man up and show up to take the bet, and then I will definitely leave this place. It is obvious that you and ftb and 80 have made up your minds.. and that's fine I guess.
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")
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")
T;
What I am I 'surprising" because I am not selling this agreement? Like I said, the concepts in Section 1 are good. The exclusions, non compliance language et al are not. Some of it will effect us in the next three years but much will not. I am leery of passing a deal that guarantees the need to expend negotiating capital in the next round or two to fix.
06-11-2012, 09:19 AM
#82
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
T;
What I am I 'surprising" because I am not selling this agreement? Like I said, the concepts in Section 1 are good. The exclusions, non compliance language et al are not. Some of it will effect us in the next three years but much will not. I am leery of passing a deal that guarantees the need to expend negotiating capital in the next round or two to fix.
What I am I 'surprising" because I am not selling this agreement? Like I said, the concepts in Section 1 are good. The exclusions, non compliance language et al are not. Some of it will effect us in the next three years but much will not. I am leery of passing a deal that guarantees the need to expend negotiating capital in the next round or two to fix.
06-11-2012, 09:25 AM
#83
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: No to large RJs
Posts: 369
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, 11:01 AM
#84
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
T;
By no means will every agreement be perfect. I pointed out a few of the shortcomings/pitfalls of this TA. Section one needs to be better, no doubt about it. With the remainder of the contract, fixing a few of these items makes the entire deal have a different effect on the staffing and income of all pilots.
06-11-2012, 11:12 AM
#85
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
I'm not saying they're going to want to renegotiate everything, but I am saying that, by definition, we can't just open a single section of the contract. You want more money? You need to be prepared to discuss some other painful topics. Or you need to be willing 3 years to make up about 60K of gains, a 19.7% bump, PLUS whatever else you need to start getting into restoration.
06-11-2012, 11:22 AM
#86
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
I don't think they simply toss money at it. I think they negotiate again, with a willingness to shift costs around between sections. What many don't seem to want to acknowledge is that this TA is non-prejudicial. As it was explained to me, this means that none of the sections exist anymore, if we sit down again for any additional negotiations.
I'm not saying they're going to want to renegotiate everything, but I am saying that, by definition, we can't just open a single section of the contract. You want more money? You need to be prepared to discuss some other painful topics. Or you need to be willing 3 years to make up about 60K of gains, a 19.7% bump, PLUS whatever else you need to start getting into restoration.
I'm not saying they're going to want to renegotiate everything, but I am saying that, by definition, we can't just open a single section of the contract. You want more money? You need to be prepared to discuss some other painful topics. Or you need to be willing 3 years to make up about 60K of gains, a 19.7% bump, PLUS whatever else you need to start getting into restoration.
06-11-2012, 11:39 AM
#87
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
I don't think they simply toss money at it. I think they negotiate again, with a willingness to shift costs around between sections. What many don't seem to want to acknowledge is that this TA is non-prejudicial. As it was explained to me, this means that none of the sections exist anymore, if we sit down again for any additional negotiations.
I'm not saying they're going to want to renegotiate everything, but I am saying that, by definition, we can't just open a single section of the contract. You want more money? You need to be prepared to discuss some other painful topics. Or you need to be willing 3 years to make up about 60K of gains, a 19.7% bump, PLUS whatever else you need to start getting into restoration.
I'm not saying they're going to want to renegotiate everything, but I am saying that, by definition, we can't just open a single section of the contract. You want more money? You need to be prepared to discuss some other painful topics. Or you need to be willing 3 years to make up about 60K of gains, a 19.7% bump, PLUS whatever else you need to start getting into restoration.
I'm not as upset by the money as I once was as I was. I was one of the guys who wanted the section 3 stuff in work rules anyway (to hide the raise from the other employee me too money grubbers
) The increase in the vacation day alone is another 1%.I'm not trying to convince anyone on how to vote. I'll never try to argue against a NO vote as that was my opinion on my first look. I'm not happy with it but I'll hold my nose and say yes
as I don't think it's a "toss it back on the grill for a few" situation either.Ferd
06-11-2012, 11:40 AM
#88
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Johnso;
Maybe.
I have a q for the floor. Would you allow more 76 seat jets and or more than 76 seats in those jets(82 seats), if there was a hard sunset provision of all current CPA's to expire at the current end dates, duration limits on the new or modified CPA's of no more than 6 years in total duration, and then as they expire, the max allowed extension is 1/2 the jets for 4 years, then 1/2 of those for 2, then gone after that?
AKA slight bump then a rational exit of the DCI flying with language in there that mandates this without a non-compliance proviso or one that takes in to account leases, pilots staffing et al?
No need to answer this publicly because, my guess is this is something that you will need to provide direction on if this fails.
06-11-2012, 11:47 AM
#89
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
Johnso;
Maybe.
I have a q for the floor. Would you allow more 76 seat jets and or more than 76 seats in those jets(82 seats), if there was a hard sunset provision of all current CPA's to expire at the current end dates, duration limits on the new or modified CPA's of no more than 6 years in total duration, and then as they expire, the max allowed extension is 1/2 the jets for 4 years, then 1/2 of those for 2, then gone after that?
AKA slight bump then a rational exit of the DCI flying with language in there that mandates this without a non-compliance proviso or one that takes in to account leases, pilots staffing et al?
No need to answer this publicly because, my guess is this is something that you will need to provide direction on if this fails.
Maybe.
I have a q for the floor. Would you allow more 76 seat jets and or more than 76 seats in those jets(82 seats), if there was a hard sunset provision of all current CPA's to expire at the current end dates, duration limits on the new or modified CPA's of no more than 6 years in total duration, and then as they expire, the max allowed extension is 1/2 the jets for 4 years, then 1/2 of those for 2, then gone after that?
AKA slight bump then a rational exit of the DCI flying with language in there that mandates this without a non-compliance proviso or one that takes in to account leases, pilots staffing et al?
No need to answer this publicly because, my guess is this is something that you will need to provide direction on if this fails.
What am I missing.....as usual
Ferd
06-11-2012, 11:47 AM
#90
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Johnso;
Maybe.
I have a q for the floor. Would you allow more 76 seat jets and or more than 76 seats in those jets(82 seats), if there was a hard sunset provision of all current CPA's to expire at the current end dates, duration limits on the new or modified CPA's of no more than 6 years in total duration, and then as they expire, the max allowed extension is 1/2 the jets for 4 years, then 1/2 of those for 2, then gone after that?
AKA slight bump then a rational exit of the DCI flying with language in there that mandates this without a non-compliance proviso or one that takes in to account leases, pilots staffing et al?
No need to answer this publicly because, my guess is this is something that you will need to provide direction on if this fails.
Maybe.
I have a q for the floor. Would you allow more 76 seat jets and or more than 76 seats in those jets(82 seats), if there was a hard sunset provision of all current CPA's to expire at the current end dates, duration limits on the new or modified CPA's of no more than 6 years in total duration, and then as they expire, the max allowed extension is 1/2 the jets for 4 years, then 1/2 of those for 2, then gone after that?
AKA slight bump then a rational exit of the DCI flying with language in there that mandates this without a non-compliance proviso or one that takes in to account leases, pilots staffing et al?
No need to answer this publicly because, my guess is this is something that you will need to provide direction on if this fails.
It would have to be the most iron clad language we've EVER seen.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
