DALPA retirement TA

[michael707767]

This is a good deal for anyone who wants to retire in the next couple of months. It is a f**k job for the junior most pilots at Delta. In the TA, the company agrees to honor all of this deal in bankruptcy, except for the part about not fuloughing anyone while a "post retirement pilot" is employed.

Any bets on how long it takes for them to declare BK? And then we have more furloughs while senior pilots, who already walked out with their million dollar lump sum, continue to fly?

I have already voted no.

 

[DaveGriffin]

The juniors get screwed again.

The TA will pass with a YES vote of 65-75%. (Just about the same as C2K)

The threat of BK is too big a stick.

 

[miles otoole]

"For example, let's say 200 767 Captains retire, then 200 737-800 Captains move up to the 767, then 200 MD-88 Captains move up to the 737-800, then 200 767-er F/Os move up to 88 CA, then 200 767 F/O move up to the 767er, which then makes 200 MD-88 F/Os move up to the 767 etc.. It is estimated that for each senior captain who retires, 6 advanced entitlements are awarded and 6 training events are scheduled. That means Delta has to train 1,200 pilots as a result of 2 months worth of retirements. That's 16% of active Delta pilots every 2 months at this rate. And oh by the way, that means that 16% of active Delta pilots will not be actively flying the line while their in training."

How can this do anything but accelerate the bleeding? Seniority aside, wouldn't it make more sense to pay pilots more to stay where they are?

 

[FDJ2]

In the TA, the company agrees to honor all of this deal in bankruptcy, except for the part about not fuloughing anyone while a "post retirement pilot" is employed.

Michael, could you point out where it says that in the TA? I've read it twice and I haven't found any section that allows the use of PRPs while the company furloughs. The only thing mentioned in the TA with regards to the furloughed pilots is that this agreement will not delay recalls.

Perhaps you read section 9 of the PWA differently.

9.

No Negative Effect on Staffing and Recalls

a. The Company will not permit the employment of a post-retirement pilot to delay or limit the Company’s actions necessary to staff that position at levels adequate to fulfill the marketing schedule for the applicable equipment model. For example,

1) The Company will post and award bids for vacancies (including contingent vacancies), and will train pilots at no lesser rate than if there were no post-retirement pilots.

2) The Company will train pilots to perform the functions of LCPs at no lesser rate than if there were no post-retirement pilots serving as LCPs.

b. The recall rate of furloughed pilots will not be reduced by the employment of post-retirement pilots.

 

[FDJ2]

What does making sense have to do with DAL management? It's a management decision to seek over $1B in concessions from a $1.8B contract, it is also a management decision to publicly announce that they seek to eliminate the Delta Pilot Pension plan. It is the threat to terminate pensions that has accelerated the retirement of senior Delta pilots who can get 50% of their pension as a lump sum. What's that old saying, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. It's better to cash in on your pension, then stick around and gamble that Grinstein won't move to terminate the Delta Pilot Pension Plan. Grinstein didn't panic the herd with a starter pistol, he went ahead and used a howitzer.

Little known fact, DAL has only made contributions to the Delta Pilot Pension Plan in one out of the last 8 years. DAL's total contribution to the pilot pensions in the last 8 years is $117M, or slightly more than twice the contribution made to the pension trust set up for 32 executives last year.

 

[InclusiveScope]

Jets4Geritol vs. Jets4Jobs

This was forwarded to me by another pilot. He is calling this deal "Jets4Geritol". Here is the difference between "Jets4Geritol" and "Jets4Jobs". The farce continues, the beat goes on........

================================================================

J4G:

• No displacements
• Re-hires junior to all other pilots for bidding purposes.
• Pay-protection for other pilots.
• "No-furlough" protections while re-hires are employed by the Company

J4J:

• APL pilots can displace other pilots.
• APL pilots have super-seniority bidding rights.
• NO pay-protection for other pilots.
• J4J pilots must be used even if it triggers furloughs for other pilots.

Once again, when the "rights" of the mainline pilots are at stake, ALPA goes to great ends to protect them. But when it comes to J4J, then the rights of the "regional" pilots are sacrificed under the pretext of "paying our dues" and "sharing the pain."

 

[michael707767]

Michael, could you point out where it says that in the TA? I've read it twice and I haven't found any section that allows the use of PRPs while the company furloughs.

Ok, here you go.

Paragraph 4B "The non-termination obligation will continue in full force and effect whether or not the Company enters bankruptcy. Neither the non-termination obligation nor any term of this Letter of Agreement (except paragraph 11. g.) will be the subject of a motion to reject, modify, abrogate or terminate under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code or otherwise. The Company will oppose any effort by any other person or entity seeking rejection, modification, abrogation, or termination of the non-termination obligation or, except for termination or modification at the initiative of the Association, this Letter of Agreement."

Ok, so this says pretty much that even if they declare bankruptcy, the company will honor this deal, with the exception of paragraph 11.g.

Hmm, wonder what paragraph 11. g says?

11.G "No pilot will be placed on furlough during the employment of a post-retirement pilot."

So, with the exception of 11.g, the no furlough clause, the company agrees to honor this deal.

Mark my words, if we go BK, and I'm not saying we will (though I would bet on it at this point), but if we go BK, there will be more furloughs while post retirement guys are still flying.

If they remove the exception from paragraph 4.B, I will vote yes. Otherwise my no vote stands.

 

[ATR-DRIVR]

Sneaky bastages, those lawyers aren't they.

 

[michael707767]

Sneaky bastages, those lawyers aren't they.

Well, what kills me is the MEC knows this is in there. They even mentioned it in their code a phone, which someone posted to start this topic. But yes, this is an example of things you don't think are in a legal agreement actually being in there.

 

[ATR-DRIVR]

And THOSE will be the things which will trip people up quickly..

 

[FDJ2]

So, with the exception of 11.g, the no furlough clause, the company agrees to honor this deal.

Thanks for pointing that out Michael. I've written my reps and John Malone to let them know why I am voting no, I hope others do the same, it's the only way they'll know what we see as the problem with the TA.

Here's what I sent them.

Does paragraph 4B mean that the company is allowed to file a motion to furlough Delta pilots while still enjoying the employment of retired pilots if we were to enter BK? I can’t support the use of retired pilots while the company furloughs. Not that anyone probably cares, but I will be voting no on this TA so long as the paragraph 11.g exception exists.
Paragraph 4B "The non-termination obligation will continue in full force and effect whether or not the Company enters bankruptcy. Neither the non-termination obligation nor any term of this Letter of Agreement (except paragraph 11. g.) will be the subject of a motion to reject, modify, abrogate or terminate under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code or otherwise. The Company will oppose any effort by any other person or entity seeking rejection, modification, abrogation, or termination of the non-termination obligation or, except for termination or modification at the initiative of the Association, this Letter of Agreement."

11.G "No pilot will be placed on furlough during the employment of a post-retirement pilot."



PS-What is the $$$ value of this concession. We ought to be getting tired of just giving away contract protections.

 

[General Lee]

In a Chap 11 situation, the No Furlough Clause would be thrown out anyway. Most of the retiring Capts will NOT get to fly anyway due to the lottery process, and if the company chooses to furlough (even though we are adding a "super hub" in ATL with 60 extra mainline flights a day) during the super busy Summer season, the whole deal expires at the end of DEC, 05---and they would have to hire back quickly for the next Spring season. I think you guys are looking at this too closely. I think this agreement is to try to keep our planes flying through the next 5-6 months. I could be wrong though, and you are free to vote any way you choose. Hey, how many DFW super senior MD-90 Capts will retire by FEB? They aren't included in this deal either(only 767 and up)---but their planes are scheduled to fly in FEB....The top 100 MD-90 Capts will probably bail out and hold ground in Ft. Worth...Also, according to crew resources, we are still short right now, and if we went to 83 hours (from 75 right now) we would still need the furlough recalls.



Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[FDJ2]

In a Chap 11 situation, the No Furlough Clause would be thrown out anyway.

Bye Bye---General Lee

General, the no furlough clause might get thrown out, but if the company chooses to go that route, then so would the use of post retirement pilots, if it were not for the 11g exception.

If we allow this TA to pass as is, we will be authorizing the company to use retired pilots to man aircraft while they simultaneously furlough junior pilots. I'm sorry, not with might vote. If not for the 11g exception the company would have to make a choice between the benefits of furloughing junior pilots, or enjoying the benefit derived of using post retirement pilots. By allowing exception 11g, we will be giving management carte blanc to do both furlough and use PRPs.

If you can't see the writing on the wall, then go ahead and vote yes. But if you can see the game the company is up to here, then vote no and force management to amend the TA and eliminate the 11g exception.

 

[General Lee]

FDJ2,


I hope they do amend the TA, but the TA assures that they will not furlough during the duration and the recall schedule will stand. If they choose to go the Chap 11 route, then they still would have to negotiate away the No Furlough Clause. It is doubtful that Dalpa would keep the retired pilots, and in the TA they have the ability to stop the program totally. If we vote down this TA and GG decides to pull the plug, then the lump sums will go away too--and the flow of guys leaving to keep thier lump sums will also dry up. This TA gives the junior pilots the ability to move up---because it gives the senior guys a "drop dead date" for their lump sums, and they would be crazy not to take this offer. That will shed 1000 guys off the top, and with the schedule already loaded into the Delta reservations scheme and the Spring and Summer months being our busiest, I can't see them trying to furlough and then having to bring them all back by DEC 31st, 05.


Bye Bye--General Lee

PS--I, too, would like a little clarification from our Dalpa leaders on this clause

 

[NYRANGERS]

FDJ2,


I hope they do amend the TA, but the TA assures that they will not furlough during the duration and the recall schedule will stand. If they choose to go the Chap 11 route, then they still would have to negotiate away the No Furlough Clause.

Bye Bye--General Lee

PS--I, too, would like a little clarification from our Dalpa leaders on this clause

That depends on how the judge looks at the LOA and if he decides that 11G negates the no-furlough clause in our PWA. Delta lawyers could argue that and win easily.

Regards,

NYR

 

[xdays]

FDJ2,


If they choose to go the Chap 11 route, then they still would have to negotiate away the No Furlough Clause. It is doubtful that Dalpa would keep the retired pilots, and in the TA they have the ability to stop the program totally.

General,

Not necessarily. Section 1113 would allow DAL to sh*t can the PWA. No negotiations would be involved.

General wrote, "If we vote down this TA and GG decides to pull the plug, then the lump sums will go away too--and the flow of guys leaving to keep thier lump sums will also dry up. "

Again, not necessarily. DAL would have to apply for an emergency termination of the retirement plan. At that point, any lump sums would be held in abeyance until the judge rules on the validlity of he filing.

 

[TonyC]

I think you guys are looking at this too closely.

Sounds like someone has "get home"-itis. Ranks up there with "I'm a safer driver when I drink."


SOMEbody crafted the language of the TA - - my guess is the Company. Those extra little clauses ("(except paragraph 11. g.) ") don't just type themselves onto the page. SOMEbody put them there purposely, and there was a thought process behind putting them there. Perhaps the intent was to put something there with the idea that the DALPA Negotiating Committee would catch it, raise an objection, and demand it be removed. Then Delta Negotiators could look like the good guys by agreeing to "make a concession" in the negotiating process. Maybe the DALPA NC missed the little nugget because they were not "looking at this too closely" since they know what "the purpose" is, and they support that purpose, IN CONCEPT. After all, they ARE human, and therefore prone to error. Perhaps the Delta Negotiators are sitting back in their offices now awestruck at the windfall they now enjoy because DALPA missed it.

OK, OK, so enough of the perhaps's. The FACT is, that little "(except paragraph 11. g.)" clause got put in there ON PURPOSE - - it wasn't just a slip of the word processor. You may never know WHY it's there, but don't close your eyes to it.



P.S. For what it's worth, I don't think the above hypothetical is how it happened. It appears from the original Code-a-phone Hotline Message that the DALPA Negotiating Committee put out they knew about it from the start. To wit, this quote: "If it is employing PRPs, the Company cannot place pilots on furlough, subject to an exception if approved by a bankruptcy court." I think I'd be asking questions of the NC to find out why they thought it is a pill worth swallowing.

 

[General Lee]

NYRangers,

If we vote it down now, there is a great chance we will go to Chap 11 (As per Grinstein's mouth), and then they would eventually go after the No Furlough Clause. But, to top it off, Delta could STOP the lump sums, and then say "No more lump sums, only full anuities." Then that lump sum option is taken away, and then they could file for termination in a worst case senario. Voting YES for the TA gives a bunch of the senior guys the needed "push" to sign up and eventually leave. Without that, you will be out for much longer.



Xdays,

They cannot just $hit can the PWA, they actually have to negotiate some what, and if nothing comes out of the negotiations, then the Judge will decide. We can still disagree after that, and then go Chap 7. This was all made possible because of Lorenzo. And, as I said above, the company can still stop the lump sums---just change it to full anuities. Then, after that is completed, they can try to recalculate the outcome, or ask for a distress termination. It is much better to be able to get 50% in a lump sum, primarily because once you get that, that is 50% they can't take away from you. (well, they could try, but no one has ever tried and it would be unlikely if you already had it and gambled it away at LAS)


Tony C,

Get home itis? Well, Grinstein has warned that HE WILL FILE FOR CHAP 11 by the end of the month if this problem isn't solved. I would say that is a threat that should be taken seriously. I have looked over the TA and see it as an opportunity for the senior guys to get their lump sums and eventually leave, allowing the junior guys to eventually move up. It gives the senior guys a guarantee on their lump sums, and also shows them the door. Not all will get to come back, and Dalpa has the ability to stop the whole program if they choose to. Getting emotional on what may happen will not help us in the short term--which is continuing to fly planes and trying to solve this liquidity problem. It gives management a few more months to presuade the creditors to hand over some concessions, and then for us to move forward. Do I think it will end up in Chap 11? I don't know, and neither does anyone but Grinstein. We can all guess. I have to believe that Dalpa has our best interests at heart, and would fight to the end if necessary. If not, then I will eventually be mad at Dalpa. Maybe they will try to change that clause, but I doubt the company will be allowed to extend the use of those retired pilots past the DEC 31, 05 date---and then they would have to bring back any furloughs.


Bye Bye--General Lee


PS---Here is an explanation from someone who is associated with our MEC about that No Furlough exception:



Why is there the exception for the no furlough piece in this agreement? Does this mean the company is planning to furlough with PRP pilots in place? Are we selling out the junior pilots? These are all legitimate questions.

Let’s start with what the company plans are. As briefed in the Sept 8th company strategic review, Delta is planning to de-peak the Atlanta hub, reduce aircraft turn times, and increase aircraft daily use (block hours per day). This will result in an increase in mainline block hours and the need for pilots to staff them. That is one of the reasons that furlough recalls in October were above the agreed upon minimum. We are currently short staffed, and this short staffing will cascade down the seniority list soon as we rebuild from the current early retirements. The amount of pilot recalls is limited now by the training slots available. It would do no good to recall extra pilots to sit unassigned awaiting training.

This plan will go through most likely in or out of bankruptcy as this has been chosen as the plan which will maximize revenue for the company. There is a chance that Delta could be forced to go into bankruptcy under some other dire circumstances (such as another terror attack) that would cause them to ground some aircraft. This grounding might not extend equally to all aircraft and they may want to keep flying the wide bodies.

Under such a circumstance, the company could file for an 1113E motion to keep the PRPs and also furlough. The law in this matter would be weighted to side with protecting the assets of the company and most likely the company would be granted such an 1113E motion. In letter 45 paragraph 4b. they commit to not filing an 1113E motion on all aspects of the letter, except paragraph 11g.

In order to extend the protection of the retirement plan, the company insisted on this exception, which they could get in court anyway. It seemed we got something (protection of the plan) for nothing (a statement of what they would get in court anyway). This is not a sellout and we don't anticipate ever having to visit this exception.

 

[xdays]

Xdays,

They cannot just $hit can the PWA, they actually have to negotiate some what, and if nothing comes out of the negotiations, then the Judge will decide. We can still disagree after that, and then go Chap 7. This was all made possible because of Lorenzo. And, as I said above, the company can still stop the lump sums---just change it to full anuities. Then, after that is completed, they can try to recalculate the outcome, or ask for a distress termination. It is much better to be able to get 50% in a lump sum, primarily because once you get that, that is 50% they can't take away from you. (well, they could try, but no one has ever tried and it would be unlikely if you already had it and gambled it away at LAS)

General,

I believe that once DAL files for chapt. 11 they can then file an 1113E motion cancelling all contracts. No negotiating involved here. ALPA would present their position and DAL would present theirs. The judge will then determine what work rules will apply in order to best protect the assets of the company. Now, I know the side letter specifically states that DAL will not file an 1113E motion except for 11(g), but I would worry about how the courts would look upon that restriction in a bankruptcy. Also, the company cannot stop the lump sum and change it to an annuity. DAL can apply for a distress termination of the retirement plan at any time, thereby freezing the lump sum payouts until a determination is made as to the validity of the filing. They can not arbitrarily stop lump sum payouts and convert it to a 100% annuity. That is against ERISA law. By the way, if I were still flying for DAL 11(g) would have to go before I could vote for this T/A. Other than that, I think the MEC has done all they could with essentially no leverage.

 

[General Lee]

Xdays,


I think the MEC just sent out an explanation and Q&A deal. I think it is a good read. I was told that Delta could ask a judge to stop all lump sums, since it can drain Delta's bank if the earlies are not age 60. Then it would be changed to annuities, which doesn't drain the bank as fast. That is how I understood it, which could be wrong. I hope you come back soon.


Bye Bye--General Lee