Delta LOA 51

[D'Angelo]

thats only for the first year. First year is always rought and it looks like more than 10k/year to me. Why lead everyone to the slaughter? If your ready to "shut it down" then surely your ready to quit as well. That way those who dont want the cut can do whatever they wish, those who wish to save their jobs have the chance to do so. Its a win win.

 

[D'Angelo]

so sad!!!!uke:

dont worry mark the delta pilots still come out smelling like roses, jobs intact and all.

 

[av8n]

It wasn't a POS. There were some points that were a bit rough, but overall it was not too bad at all.


Not too bad at all , WTFO?

1. Bent over on Scope (where did we hear nothing larger than a 70 seaters)?
2. The furloughees are scr*wed again. They were to be called back on June
1, 2006 by a previous TA. Now - completely gutted - no call back date
ever! They have already been out for over 4 1/2 years.
3. PLANNED default on the pension plan - go to another plan (PBGC) which
already is in trouble. One bad decision after another.


A lot of emotion was out there, and the nay sayers couldn't really come up with what they would change on the TA. General Lee

Why don't you give the shaft to the furloughees and help out the company by picking up some more greenslips.

 

[General Lee]

Why don't you give the shaft to the furloughees and help out the company by picking up some more greenslips.

Say what? I don't greenslip at all, because that would take valuable time away from Flightinfo.com. Don't be mad that the majority of the voters saw the light. To say that we could get more by voting this down is ridiculous. To say that our furloughed pilots got screwed is ridiculous. Those guys will get call backs, but no more than 1 in 4 will come back---think about it. And, being an MD88 FO, you probably know about the shortage you guys have, especially here in ATL. As far as "nothing larger than 70 seats"--yeah, I did hear that, and I actually said that a lot too. But, when you look at the agreement and could see that we already allowed them RJs up to 86,000 lbs in the last agreement, they would have gotten those larger RJs with just 70 seats, and then they would have been unprofitable. Will those extra 6 first class seats mean anything? Yes, to the tune of $90 million a year in extra revenue, that we need. Could we have just bought those 76 seaters and done it ourselves? I don't think so. We would have had to establish another B scale for flight attendants and mechanics, along with low pay for the FOs on those birds. Plus, we would have had to buy those 76 seaters, giving us less money to buy larger planes that do bring in more revenue than 76 seaters. April revenue shot up 14%, and that will go up for the Summer too. To help pay off the remainder of our debt out of BK, we need to make as much revenue as we can, and 76 seaters won't do it. To say that DCI will get larger is ridiculous, because nobody or nothing can allow that--this agreement has a no force mejeur clause for increasing the size of the RJs. And if you think otherwise, then watch out for those black helicopters flying over your house at night, spying on you.....

Please tell me and show me where I am wrong. (try not to say "history shows" because most of our management that put us here ARE history)


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Rogue5]

In case any of you are confused as to how this could happen, especially when Jen Lee repeatedly assured us he and 50.1% of his buddies would certainly vote this down, see the strength of his convictions and backbone below from the Regionals forum:

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?p=1013904#post1013904

Yes, in the end I took the emotion out of it and looked at the deal. I saw that the people who may want to come back (estimated at 1 in 4) will probably come back (we are very short in a few categories). The scope deal was not bad, and the extra seats will allow for more revenue, and yet at the same time we established 100 seat rates. The pension replacement will be good for most, and the work rules were not touched. We get some automatic raises and a chance for even larger ones. The contract length is short, and overall it is better than most other TAs. YES, I voted Yes.


Bye Bye--General Lee

Amazing...

 

[800Dog]

It wasn't a POS. There were some points that were a bit rough, but overall it was not too bad at all. A lot of emotion was out there, and the nay sayers couldn't really come up with what they would change on the TA. Most were mad at management, and most of the management left or is in the process.

Bye Bye--General Lee

General,
I am a naysayer. Voted no once again. Here is what I would have changed with the TA.

1. Left the sick leave policy alone. We work in a different environment than most and have physical requirements placed on us that most workers do not have. The new sick leave policy is punitive and unnecessary.

2. Scope. As many ALPA reps stated a over the past several months, "anything over 70 seats will be flown by Delta pilots". Line in the sand and all. They will be back wanting DCI to fly larger EMB jets. Just watch.

3. Retirement. A 9% DC is not enough. We should be in the 10-12% range considering what we have given up. The PBGC is after the 650/2.1 and we will see pennies on the dollar if anything. We do not even know how this $$ will be allocated.

You make statements on this board as to how the Delta pilots will not bend on this or bend on that and every time the Delta pilots fold. You then post saying things are not as bad as they seem. This TA is a POS. No way around it.

 

[PCL_128]

As far as "nothing larger than 70 seats"--yeah, I did hear that, and I actually said that a lot too. But, when you look at the agreement and could see that we already allowed them RJs up to 86,000 lbs in the last agreement, they would have gotten those larger RJs with just 70 seats, and then they would have been unprofitable. Will those extra 6 first class seats mean anything? Yes, to the tune of $90 million a year in extra revenue, that we need. Could we have just bought those 76 seaters and done it ourselves? I don't think so. We would have had to establish another B scale for flight attendants and mechanics, along with low pay for the FOs on those birds. Plus, we would have had to buy those 76 seaters, giving us less money to buy larger planes that do bring in more revenue than 76 seaters. April revenue shot up 14%, and that will go up for the Summer too. To help pay off the remainder of our debt out of BK, we need to make as much revenue as we can, and 76 seaters won't do it. To say that DCI will get larger is ridiculous, because nobody or nothing can allow that--this agreement has a no force mejeur clause for increasing the size of the RJs. And if you think otherwise, then watch out for those black helicopters flying over your house at night, spying on you.....

Sigh.... Mainline pilots never learn. For two decades you guys have been giving flying away, and everytime you rationalize it with this kind of crap. Don't you get it? In a year they'll be back for 86-seat flying, and then 90-seaters, and then 100-seaters, and on and on and on. It never ends until you cowards stop giving it away so easily. This was the chance to draw the line in the sand and say "enough is enough." Instead, you've sent exactly the wrong message to airline management all over the country. Good job, General.

 

[General Lee]

General,
I am a naysayer. Voted no once again. Here is what I would have changed with the TA.

1. Left the sick leave policy alone. We work in a different environment than most and have physical requirements placed on us that most workers do not have. The new sick leave policy is punitive and unnecessary.

2. Scope. As many ALPA reps stated a over the past several months, "anything over 70 seats will be flown by Delta pilots". Line in the sand and all. They will be back wanting DCI to fly larger EMB jets. Just watch.

3. Retirement. A 9% DC is not enough. We should be in the 10-12% range considering what we have given up. The PBGC is after the 650/2.1 and we will see pennies on the dollar if anything. We do not even know how this $$ will be allocated.

You make statements on this board as to how the Delta pilots will not bend on this or bend on that and every time the Delta pilots fold. You then post saying things are not as bad as they seem. This TA is a POS. No way around it.

Coming back for larger EMBs? When our contract ends in 3 or 4 years, do you know how many MAINLINE E190s will be flying out there? USAir will have 50, Jetblue will have over 50, and Air Canada will being flying them all over the states from Canada. Do you really think we will give them up? No way. They can ask, but they will be looking at all of the mainline ones flying around at the same time. Wrong. They can ask all they want, but the other airlines flying them will show them it is a mainline plane.

Retirement is not that bad, since we still have the 2% match on the 401K, along with the 9%, and then add the part from the $650 million note and any part of your $70,000 (equity share) that you want to throw in there (you can put it in savings after taxes and add each year afterwards to your 401K to the max). You can choose what you want to do with your share in equity.

Sick leave policy. If you don't abuse it, 240 hours a year is fine. If you break your leg, 4 months should be enough. Don't ski double black diamonds.


Overall, it wasn't that bad, and we can always try to chip away at it again when we start the 1-2 years of negotiating in 3.5 years.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[GCAP]

This is great news for newbies like me. It means that DAL will be around for the long term so that I can hopefully be a Delta professional someday.

You are what is wrong in aviation.
I hope you lose your medical very soon

 

[GCAP]

Coming back for larger EMBs? When our contract ends in 3 or 4 years, do you know how many MAINLINE E190s will be flying out there? USAir will have 50, Jetblue will have over 50, and Air Canada will being flying them all over the states from Canada. Do you really think we will give them up? No way. They can ask, but they will be looking at all of the mainline ones flying around at the same time. Wrong. They can ask all they want, but the other airlines flying them will show them it is a mainline plane.

Retirement is not that bad, since we still have the 2% match on the 401K, along with the 9%, and then add the part from the $650 million note and any part of your $70,000 (equity share) that you want to throw in there (you can put it in savings after taxes and add each year afterwards to your 401K to the max). You can choose what you want to do with your share in equity.

Sick leave policy. If you don't abuse it, 240 hours a year is fine. If you break your leg, 4 months should be enough. Don't ski double black diamonds.


Overall, it wasn't that bad, and we can always try to chip away at it again when we start the 1-2 years of negotiating in 3.5 years.


Bye Bye--General Lee

Let me add....You ,also, are what is wrong with aviation. I never thought that I would be ashamed to be a Delta who..oops I mean pilot.
Thank God I won't be around for the next round of kneeling.