The Delta vote

[SLUF4]

The pay in this TA is the least of my worries...I'm a no

 

[General Lee]

The pay in this TA is the least of my worries...I'm a no

You need to hit a roadshow first and understand this TA.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[BID]

There was probably a good argument when Delta sold scope a couple of years ago? Hey, it's just a couple of 76 seat aircraft. Only 6 more than a 70 seat jet!

All I know is if Delta signs off on this there will be a lot of 90 seat aircraft (configured to 76) flying out there. Our United CEO wants this. If he offers us your contract I will vote no. I just can't imagine allowing such big jets being out sourced. No thanks.

This TA is complicated and I appreciate you taking the time to explain it If there is a lesson I am seeing here, it is to not allow bigger jets in the first place. You can't recapture any of it and the company will find ways to entice and buy bigger regional aircraft.

$$$

 

[Speedtape]

No pilot group can negotiate the United contract except the UAL/CO pilots.

 

[nimtz]

You know what GL I always gave you the benefit of the doubt unlike many others around here. Your sad attempt to legitamize our petty MEC fighting as an excuse for DAL ALPA to open 70+ seat scope says it all. I hope/pray the majority of DAL pilots are smarter then you. Again congrats for being right ASA lifers and to GL enjoy the carrot you hypocrite!

 

[180ToTheMarker]

You need to hit a roadshow first and understand this TA.


Bye Bye---General Lee

I've hit two of them. Ask the reps hard questions and they dance around the answer. That scares me. Either our own reps don't know the TA that well or they are hiding something. I'm a "no"

 

[Rebound]

There are several aspects to this TA that I do not like. The key factors leading me towards a yes vote are: I have not read or heard of any viable alternatives whoes potential gains outweigh the inherent risks. If I believe in the current negotiating process, this should be the most we were able to get out of the company at this particular window of time.
If 3 1/2 years from now we are still profitable, we need to hit up the company for more. If the economy tanks, we'll be glad we locked in what we did. I am trying not to base my vote on what I feel we should get rather what we are able to negotiate.

 

[jtf]

What happens to scope in bankruptcy? Say you have the max 76 seaters on property and then some hiccup along with 14 billion in underfunded pensions sets off bankruptcy. The scope gets tossed almost instantly to allow all to stay and to stay at 76 seats. Then quite possibly the 717 leases get terminated. Maybe some more paycuts to go along with a further reduction in scope since there is a clear history that the mainline pilots don't want to fly anything smaller than a 717- you've got the rates in writing, but never flew them.

I have no idea what the end game is, but this just seems too easy to not have an unseen catch- not that giving away that many larger airplanes isn't a huge catch.

 

[Tanker Clown]

I like Genitals "no help" comment. SWA has ZERO RJs and still makes more than Song. genitals was going to do back flips over whatever came out. He's demonstrated how big of a sucker he is. How'd those pay cuts treat ya? Keep ya out of bankruptcy?

Whatever GL does, you guys would be wise to do the opposite.

 

[Voice Of Reason]

Anyone ever heard of Ford & Harrison, where your head of HR is from? duh?

You guys at Delta need to:

STOP listening to road shows

STOP reading Negotiater's Notepad and other memos

STOP taking your reps answers as fact.

(...and it should go without saying STOP listening to Kool-Aid from management and their concurrent scare tactics via media press releases about how everything hinges on the pilots)

Why???? The bottom line is they can put anything they want in a "notepad" or memo and tell you anything they want (and it may not even be malicious from reps, they likely have just been drinking the Kool-Aid)...and NONE of that matters a bit!

WHAT matters then? What is specifically WRITTEN in the *SIGNED contract*! Stop complaining about "legalese" and just READ what is ACTUALLY WRITTEN in your native language...I assure you, you can do this, and it is the ONLY thing that can be used for or against you, NOT a "Notepad" or hearsay.

The whole time, think? "Why is this passage vague?" or "Why does this not specify this?" "or prevent THAT?" Is this written in a way they can mess with us in even NEW ways?"

They pay this law firm MILLIONS to keep the same millions from the pilots. They have a playbook (read "Confessions of a Union Buster") and without fail pilot unions fall for the exact same tricks, over and over.

WHY is there such a rush (on the management's end)? WHY is your union SO accomodating to them? They hold all the cards, yet STILL run scared. When does "next time" become THIS time?

You all need to FORCE your union to FIGHT them (they WILL win if they are strong)...and by all means STOP FALLING RIGHT INTO THEIR HANDS by dividing up into DPA and N vs S! That is EXACTLY what they want... they want you to be divided on this TA...they win EITHER way...PILOTS, however, can only win ONE way: Sticking together with the union you have, throw the Management Buddies TO THE CURB *NOW* and get smart RADICAL people in there who realize the power of what? 10 to 12,000 PILOTS that the airline NEEDS! My GAHD if you don't have leverage NOW, WHEN do you?????

Get rid of the Kool-Aid Drinking, management LOVING double agent members of the MEC you have NOW and get the experienced FIGHTERS in there NOW in your *CURRENT UNION*! There is nothing better to them to have a divided and WEAKER union.

The whole industry is watching, if your own personal losses aren't enough motivation. Bottom line, "YES" to this embarassment equals NO WIN for pilots there and elsewhere, NO + fighters=ONLY UP!


ETA--- After googling "Ford & Harrison" (if you are sadly unfamiliar), also Google "Airlines for America" and look at the board. Management of ALL these airlines are working TOGETHER tp play ALL of you airline pilots against each other and divide and conquer in unison. Thought that was obvious but reading here makes me wonder.

 

[filejw]

No pilot group can negotiate the United contract except the UAL/CO pilots.

True however voting yes on this TA puts them in a bind as it helps make 76 the new normal. I'm a no for sure, time to take a stand.

 

[SLUF4]

You need to hit a roadshow first and understand this TA.


Bye Bye---General Lee

yeah, because I'm sure the road show isn't skewed to make me vote yes. I can read and I understand the TA-I don't need their interpretations and false promises. Oh, but I do plan on being at the road show near me.

 

[General Lee]

True however voting yes on this TA puts them in a bind as it helps make 76 the new normal. I'm a no for sure, time to take a stand.

They already have hundreds of 70 seaters, and unlimited large turboprops, which helped CAL get rid of 737-500s in EWR. Notice CAL had scope for allowing only 50 seaters, yet because they couldn't get it together with the two MECs, they now have 70 seat E170s (ok, 67 seats) flying through IAH and EWR. They have a lot more to fix than we do, including terrible pay and work rules. Do you think all of that could be fixed in one upcoming contract? Heck no. The management will probably take it all the way, as long as they can.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[General Lee]

yeah, because I'm sure the road show isn't skewed to make me vote yes. I can read and I understand the TA-I don't need their interpretations and false promises. Oh, but I do plan on being at the road show near me.

Good. Maybe someone else explaining the issues will give you even more info to help make an educated decision.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[SLUF4]

I'm actually pretty surprised that you are for this TA, General. You seem to have always had a strong displeasure for RJ's and yet this one allows for more bigger RJ's. Yes, the 50 seaters will start being parked, but they were going away anyway. The "hard cap" can be negotiated away in 3 or 4 years next time the contract is up.

 

[General Lee]

I'm actually pretty surprised that you are for this TA, General. You seem to have always had a strong displeasure for RJ's and yet this one allows for more bigger RJ's. Yes, the 50 seaters will start being parked, but they were going away anyway. The "hard cap" can be negotiated away in 3 or 4 years next time the contract is up.

I have always wanted fewer RJs, and more mainline planes. This TA does that. The 50 seaters will go away, but leases on more than 300 of them continue for years. That is a problem. Not all of our contracts have given up on scope, like the joint contract with NWA. That didn't give away any more RJs. But, this agreement, although allowing more 76 seaters, puts a ratio in that finally favors mainline, and does put hard numbers on all sizes of RJs, and tying them to 717s and mainline growth. I like that. Fewer total RJs is good for pilots and for profits.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[SLUF4]

the way they are going to get the 76 seaters is by negotiating with bombardier probably on a 2:1 swapout with the 50 seaters. This could happen regardless of if we vote the TA in or not.

 

[waveflyer]

On that same not, delta could get the same swap out deal with bombardier if mainline flew the -900's. I'm sure the aircraft deals aren't dependent on who flies them.

General- by all definitions the 717 is an RJ. It performs the same mission as the -900, just with more people.

You are treating all rj's as equals.
There is a big difference between a -200 stretch challenger, and a -900.

United And AA are fighting like hell to keep larger planes from being outsourced- this DALPA TA, if passed, will make that very hard.

Can you at least acknowledge that fact? Bc it is a FACT.
-900's are a big damn airplane.

DALPA pilots ought to be flying the new ones

 

[horseface]

Looking at the TA that has been presented, I have to say, even though its on the low end of economic gains, I could live with it, except for the scope.

My initial reaction was that the pay was low, but after digesting this thing for a while, the scope is really the lacking area.

My decision flow goes kinda like this:
Givens:
-compensation increase is low but acceptable given the early implementation/short duration

-allowing the 76 seaters to become cemented into outsourced territory sucks a$$. They are in wet cement presently, but this TA will allow the cement to set, and they will basically be gone for the future.

Prognosis:
-If this TA is voted down, I do not see enough cohesion within the DAL pilot group (nor ALPA) to capture all 76 seat flying. The upper 51% really only want money. The lower 49% want 1)money and 2)scope. It just doesn't have the footing. I think the mental line is at 90-100 seat range, the 76 seat ship has sailed in the collective mind of DAL pilots, and ALPA as an organization. That decision was reached at sometime in the past, but no captain I have flown with in the past 2 years has said "we have got to turn the tide on 76 seat aircraft". And the FOs don't walk around saying "the 76 seaters are killing my career". It is simply not a priority.

-If this TA is voted down, DAL pilots will likely spend a more "normal" time negotiating a marginally better agreement. I personally don't think scope would be improved significantly in this event.

Forward looking:
-The scope issue really should have some nationalized strategy overtly being espoused by alpa. Something like "ALPA will NOT be a signatory to any further agreements that allow XX-seaters at another of our legacy carriers". Which is not being communicated at all. But it is being demonstrated, de facto, by virtue of this TA seeing the light of day. I can only believe that ALPA, at the national level down to the local level, has resigned/agreed/colluded to have the 76 seaters exist in the domain of outsourced flying. If this were not the case, this TA would not be a TA, it would be a non-starter. Which is the crux of the conflict of interest argument that may prove to be the downfall of ALPA.

-To me, comparisons to SWA having no RJs do not account for present reality. Southwest has spend the past couple of decades building its company and culture around having no RJs. Tip-of-the-hat (or long-neck) to you. Excellent business plan your execs have implemented, that has benefited the company and the pilots there immensely. Delta has spent the past couple of decades building a network to incorporate them, to the detriment of the pilot group. Nothing can be done to change either of those facts. Having no RJs at DAL would be ideal, but unfortunately, not gonna happen.

To walk into a negotiation and say "we will not have another 76 seater outsourced, we want mainline pilots to fly them, period" could be done. There is no way that any executive leadership team would let that go for less than the expected "return on invested capital" loss that would be realized by DAL. The number is huge. Think of the cost savings not only from lower cost structure of the contractors, but also the savings of pitting those contractors against each other, without end. No one here would be willing to pay that number for the 76 seat flying because it makes no economic sense. The career enhancement $-numbers simply will not bear it given the current realities of legacy airlines. If you spend your time believing otherwise, its fantasy-land.

I dont know where the 76 seaters got their nose into the tent first, compass, comair, or somewhere else. It was most likely at an ALPA carrier. Thanks ALPA. (It was given away WAY too cheaply.)

Lets just make sure its not 100 seaters next....
if you're on this forum hating on 76 seat scope, go volunteer within your own union to be the guy who says "enough".

 

[WWEfan]

For all of you that are surprised about the General's decision to cave on scope you really shouldn't be. I have said many times here that history proves pilots will cave on scope for more money. That is exactly what happened.