Delta TA on SCOPE

[Scoot 11]

A little melodrama sometimes does well to make a point.



Because the hypocrisy is so heavy that you might as well be beating everyone over the head with it. It's blatantly obvious to anyone outside the SWA "bubble" that a SWAPA pilot criticizing a legacy pilot group for not "holding the line" is just about the most absurd thing imaginable. Just over a decade ago, the Delta pilots were ratifying the most expensive pilot contract in history. Now, here you are so proud of your CBA when it isn't even a shadow of DAL Contract '01. The piloting profession has fallen quite far, and a big part of the reason is carriers like SWA and JetBlue (and yes, AirTran) who were paying their pilots far less than the legacy carriers were making. SWAPA made no attempt to follow the industry pattern. They were perfectly content making a fraction of what the Delta pilots were making. This wasn't 50 years ago, wave, this was a mere 11 years ago. This wasn't before our time. Both of us were in the industry at the time. You're well aware of it. It isn't news to you. So where is your criticism of SWAPA for failing to engage in pattern bargaining to advance the profession? Where is your criticism of SWAPA for being willing to undercut the legacy pilot groups? Until we see some of that criticism, then your criticism of DALPA is nothing more than blatant hypocrisy.



The type? No, not really. That's small potatoes. It's still wrong, though, and SWAPA should at least make an effort to put a stop to it (many ALPA pilot groups used bargaining capital in the past to put an end to PFT schemes). But the overall issue of SWAPA's substandard contract prior to 2004? Yes, that's most certainly comparable to outsourcing in terms of damage done to the profession. The lower wages, the lack of a pension, and the work rules that allowed lower staffing levels all placed immense pressure on the legacy pilot groups in bankruptcy court. There wasn't a bankruptcy judge in the country who was going to allow the Delta, USAirways, United, Continental, or Northwest pilots to keep their pensions and pay rates while other mainline carriers were out there attracting hoards of pilots willing to do the job for nothing more than a 401k, 60% of the pay, and more block time. Can you honestly not see this?



Again, as I've said repeatedly, I don't disagree with you about the problems with outsourcing. I want it to end just as you do. My point is that your expectations of ending it abruptly are wildly unrealistic. The problem can be solved, but not the way you think it can. The DAL TA is the first step. The UAL/CAL TA will hopefully be the next step with further improvements. This is pattern bargaining. It takes time, and it's the only way we're going to get anywhere. Because I can assure you, management isn't going to agree to what you want them to agree to, and the NMB isn't going to force them. Therefore, you have zero leverage to accomplish your goal. What you advocate would be a recipe for the Delta pilots living under a bankruptcy era contract indefinitely. That's not a solution for outsourcing, that's just stubbornness and emotional thinking.

+1. Well stated sir! I couldn't have said that any better!

 

[ualdriver]

+1. Well stated sir! I couldn't have said that any better!

+ 2.....

 

[777forever]

+3 for PCL!

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[Dan Roman]

PCL nailed it. I got accused of being anti SWA pilot elsewhere on here. My response to that has always been I'm just tired of the SWA narcissisism so abundant on here. This board is chock full of SWA pilots criticizing ALPA even though it's ALPA that is why SWAPA even had a bar to raise.

 

[General Lee]

PCL can be my eventual FO anytime! +1.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[BigRed1]

Part 1

ALPA Council 1 Update, May 31, 2012

By now, most of you have had the opportunity to review the details of the TA. I think that now is a good time for me to explain my NO vote on the MEC and to give you my thoughts on the good, bad, and ugly of the agreement.

I think we all were hopeful that this agreement would finally be a “wow” moment for all 12,000 pilots at Delta Air Lines after a decade of pay cuts and stagnant career progression. Unfortunately this is not the case. Management is smart. They do not need 12,000 yes votes, they only need 6,001.

Through the feedback that I have received from phone calls, e-mails, lounge visits, PUB events, LEC meetings, and personal conservations, it became pretty clear what the pilots of C1 were expecting from the first post-merger Section 6 negotiations—an industry-leading contract. This feedback also showed that payand scope were by far the most important issues for the pilots.

Pay
This is one of the easiest sections to evaluate with respect to the direction given to us by the C1 pilots. The direction was clearly that the Delta pilots expected to be the highest-paid in the industry. Not by year three or four, but immediately. While this TA does increase pay by 19.7 percent by 2015, in my opinion, it comes too late. Also consider that to achieve this increase, the lower-tier profit sharing was reduced by 33 percent (<$2.5B, the range from which we’ve received our profit sharing). This reduction in profit sharing equates to approximately 2.5 percent of pay, assuming profits near $2.5B. In reality, that 8.5 percent pay increase in 2013 is offset by the profit-sharing reduction for 2013 (paid in 2014), so that it’s actually more equivalent to a 6 percent pay increase. While I do agree that, in general, it is better to have pay in the form of pay rates than profit sharing, I would note that, for the term of this TA, it has been widely forecasted that the airline industry is poised for large profits. I would also suggest that in this case, taking money from profit sharing to add to pay rates is similar to taking money from your savings account and depositing it in your checking account. After the transaction is complete, you are no richer than when you started.

Other areas of compensation that were changed include:

• Increase in reserve guarantee (72-80 hrs) GOOD

• Increase in reserve maximum to ALV+15.
Increase in pay GOOD; potentially working every day on reserve BAD

• Average Daily Guarantee (4:30/day) GOOD

• CQ training (3:45/day) GOOD

• Distributed training pay from1 minute for 3, to 1 to 2 GOOD

• Vacation pay from 3:00 per day to 3:15 per day GOOD

• International pay increased to $6.50/Captains and $4.50/First Officers GOOD

• Per diem increased $.10 in 2013 and $.10 in 2014 GOOD

Scope
While the changes to scope are harder to quantify than pay, I do believe that there is an overall improvement in scope. I do not, however, believe it is a “home run” as others have stated. Block hours will transfer from the DCI carriers to the mainline under this agreement. I think we can all agree that the transfer of flying from DCI to mainline is a good thing. However, when we look at the scope section closely, it is not as rosy as some will have you believe. Note also that the pilot group did not receive any “negotiating credit” for the scope changes that the Company wanted.

Current RJ Limits

• Unlimited propeller-driven aircraft up to 70 seats

• Unlimited jet aircraft up to 50 seats

• 255 limit on 70/76-seat jet aircraft. Currently there are 102 70-seat jet aircraft and 153 76-seat aircraft. Total 255.

• 3 to 1 growth of 76-seat aircraft/mainline once there are 767 aircraft on the mainline, up to a maximum of 255 76-seat aircraft.

TA Limits

• Hard cap of 450 DCI aircraft (with a few limited exceptions). GOOD

• Hard cap of 125 50-seat aircraft. GOOD

• Hard cap of 102 70-seat aircraft EVEN

• Hard cap of 223 76-seat aircraft. (Must take delivery of all 88 B-717 aircraft.) BAD

While we have accomplished setting a “hard cap” on the DCI carriers’ fleets, we have allowed the company to outsource an additional 70 76-seat jets. Under the current PWA, the company could exchange 70-seat RJs for 76-seat RJs if the mainline fleet exceeded 767. While technically they could increase the number of 76-seat aircraft up to a limit of 255, this scenario is highly unlikely. I doubt the company could justify the additional expense of (in most cases) swapping to a 76-seat jet just to add 6 seats. The additional 76-seat RJs are equivalent to “two Compass Airlines.” The key point is that there will be 325 70/76-seat jets that will be outsourced under this agreement. I remember that when I got hired at Northwest, the number of DC-9s on the property (note that this was before the small RJs were born) totaled around 180 aircraft. In the ensuing 17 years, the numbers of RJs have increased by the hundreds, while mainline aircraft have dwindled. That is a hard pill to swallow. Also understand that the block-hour (BH) ratios in place between domestic mainline and DCI do not make a distinction between which DCI aircraft block hours would be pulled down if the Company fell out of compliance due to a domestic mainline BH reduction. This means that if DCI needs to reduce their block hours, the carriers (and Delta) could choose to further reduce 50-seat block hours and leave the 76-seat block hours untouched. In an extreme example that incorporated a significant domestic mainline BH reduction, it could be possible that the DCI flying would be comprised of only 76-seat RJs.
So, in an increasing BH environment, DCI can only add 76-seat RJs as 717s arrive at mainline. That’s positive. However, in a decreasing BH environment, the disincentive/penalty for the company isn’t as great, since they can return to compliance by reducing usage in the smaller, more inefficient aircraft that they want to ultimately “park” anyway. It’s more negative for the pilot group when potentially larger domestic mainline aircraft are reduced than the Company’s disincentive for doing so.

This high level of fleet flexibility that the Company receives from this agreement is one of the key reasons that expectations for this TA were so high.

Continued...

 

[BigRed1]

Part 2

Continued from Part 1 above...

The additional 717s added to fleet is a positive move for the Delta pilots. It is important to understand, though, that these additional aircraft do not necessarily mean additional jobs. Just as the transfer of block hours to the mainline is good for Delta pilots, I would not just assume that this translates into additional jobs. With the increase in the ALV/TLV, much, if not all, of the additional hours could be absorbed by the existing mainline pilot group.

MISCELLANEOUS

Increased Reserve Pay GOOD

Sick Leave GOOD

ALV Window Increased from 72-82 to 72-84
This is an important issue that I think sometimes gets overlooked. This increase reduces the number of pilots required by approximately 340. These jobs will be difficult to ever get back. While the surveys showed that pilots wanted to make more money, I don’t think most pilots meant that they wanted to work more.UGLY

Changed the Summer Bid Months to 30 Days
Again this reduces the number of pilots needed. While this change seems insignificant, I am always hesitant to make changes that reduce staffing. BAD

Early Retirement Program
While we were unable to get the medical premiums reduced for retired pilots, the company was interested in an Early Out program to address the pilot surplus due to the productivity increases. I believe this is good for the pilots who will be able to take advantage of this opportunity. I would not, however, anticipate much, if any, movement upward as a result of this program. The company will be selecting pilots in the surplus categories. Once these pilots leave, there is no guarantee that the positions that they left will be filled. In most cases, the positive result could be that pilots aren’t MD’d from overstaffed categories. For example, if there are 10 Early Outs from the 747-400, the company is not required to (and most likely will not) fill those positions with junior pilots. GOOD

ADG
Average Day Guarantee was added to the PWA. This is another form of Rig that pays a minimum of 4:30 per day, regardless of any duty period. This does not replace the current 5:15 duty period average but just adds another layer of protection for those trips that have more days than duty periods—rotations (22:00-02:00 exception) where there is a long layover and no duty period for a calendar day. It was not as much as we hoped for, but definitely a step in the right direction. GOOD

Duration
3½ years. GOOD

Conclusion
While I believe there are many good things in this agreement, it did not meet the direction of the C1 pilots. When the MEC was first notified about the possibility of engaging the company early, we were told that there was “value” that could be extracted from negotiating with the company early. We were originally told that this agreement would increase the number of jobs at the mainline. Remember the company approached usto start negotiations early because of an issue that they needed help with. If there was ever was a time to hit a “home run,” the time was now. Considering the number of gains achieved relative to the amount of “give” for the company, I do not see where we captured the “jobs” or “value,” even considering the time/value/money argument. Here is a quote from Mike Campbell, executive vice president–Human Resources and Labor Relations, shortly after the TA was reached.

“The fleet changes provided by this agreement, coupled with the productivity and profit-sharing changes,cover the investments in our employees.”

One of the pro-TA talking points is the argument that if this TA is rejected by the membership, it would automatically mean years of negotiations under the traditional Section 6. While that certainly is a possibility, I do not believe it is likely. Again, remember that the company came to us, to help them with their problem. That problem does not go away if the TA is rejected. This TA gives the company a lot of what they wanted (additional 76-seat RJs, increased pilot productivity). To just assume that the company would tear up the whole agreement and start from scratch is a bit of a stretch. The necessary risk assessment should not just include the potential of a standard lengthy Section 6 process, but also management’s much shorter-term needs and plans.
We are frequently told by many official and unofficial sources (both labor friendly and unfriendly) that it is highly unlikely and difficult that a large airline (much like the railroad industry after full consolidation) would ever be allowed to utilize “self-help” again. If this is true, then major contractual improvements will be dependent upon “opportunities” rather than old-style Section 6. Fine, but most “opportunities” come with some type of “pain” or risk, and they are obviously not “free.” This means that every “opportunity” must be exploited to the max and have its potential leverage fully realized. Maybe there will be more in the nearer term; maybe not, but I simply don’t believe that we got there in this case.

I was honored to represent the pilots of C1 during the debate at the MEC on the merits of this agreement. I truly believe that I carried out my responsibility to the C1 pilots when I voted NO to the TA. Now that the TA is in front of you, I urge everyone to be as educated as possible about what the TA means to you. It is now up to you to decide if it meets your threshold.

Fraternally,

Steve Mayer, Capt. Rep

 

[PCL_128]

PCL can be my eventual FO anytime!

Oh, how I wish we had that option, General!

 

[Dan Roman]

The problem I've got with the Steve Mayer letter is this.
As a rep you are part of a team, you should, by all means argue vigorously any point you want to make. You should take a strong stand in making that and than the MEC should vote. It's all done behind closed doors for a very good reason. The correct position is what the MAJORITY agree on. Not any one individual's position. That's how it's supposed to work, and when the MEC put's out a position, I think it's quite wrong for an individual to try and undermine what the majority have agreed on with his own personal take.
It's a committee, what they agree on should be the only thing that comes out, individuals trying to promote their own agenda against the will of the majority simply undermines the whole process.
Just a thought.

 

[Dan Roman]

Essentially, he lost out in the vote (TA got approved by the majority) and he wants to keep arguing his position.