Council 44 Pilots,
By now you have had time to read the new tentative agreement. As you know, I was the only representative that voted against the agreement. I have been silent in order to give you time to see the agreement for yourself. Now it is time for me to explain my vote.
Since SLOA 50, I have spent time in the lounge, attended MEC meetings, helped run an LEC meeting and read countless emails. I used the time I spent in front of you in an attempt to understand your positions so that I could represent you to the best of my ability. At the MEC meetings we received detailed briefings containing in-depth polling conducted by the Wilson Center . At the LEC meeting we received not only feedback, but actual direction from you in the form of a unanimous resolution. In that resolution, I heard you loud and clear: no more concessions other than absolutely necessary to keep the company alive and respect the Bankruptcy Protection Letter. To confirm that I heard you correctly, I read this back many times in our face-to-face discussions. It seemed clear to me this was the direction of the majority of you, the pilots of Council 44.
After reading the agreement, then hearing our MEC Administration and professionals, I found that this TA clearly does not meet your direction or respect the Bankruptcy Protection Letter. Our analysis last fall determined the company only needed a fraction of their $325 million per year demand. We did SLOA 50 and gave them $140 million per year. The reason you were asked to give more than our fair share in SLOA 50 was to buy time so the negotiating committee could reach a fair and equitable negotiated agreement. If this TA passes, SLOA 50 becomes permanent plus a whole lot more. There are clearly some positive aspects of this agreement such as the preservation of work rules and the small monetary compensations in the form of the notes, the claim and small raises however, this TA falls far short of our goal of fair and equitable.
Below are some of my greatest concerns.
Section 1
*76 seat RJ's at DCI despite unequivocal direction from the line to the reps, and from the reps to the administration.
*The so-called "Mainline Growth" is tied to the fleet as of Jan 1, 2007 yet we already know the fleet is shrinking this year
*Loss of the furlough recall date. (August, 2008)
Section 3
*Full snap backs are predicated on corporate performance.
*The EMB rates are too low and represent the next B-scale.
Section 7
*Loss of the 6th week of vacation.
Section 14
*New sick leave policy enormously reduces our benefit.
*The formula for the anniversary change to June 1, 2006 makes the transition retroactive .
Section 26, Attachments & Exhibits
*A major gutting of our Disability and Survivorship (D&S) Plan. Remember this plan was funded and has not needed any corporate contributions since 1991. Further, the cost (not to exceed $60 million per year) for the pilot's sick leave and other legally permissible benefits will be paid from a trust funded by the D&S plan, and we still have to pay all of our premiums and deductibles.
*9% DC plan for all pilots plus 2 % 401K. This should have been higher. An 11% DC plan for a 25 year career compares to a 33% FAE DB plan.
*We agree not to object to losing the Delta Pilots Retirement Plan, the Western Air Lines Defined Benefit Plan, the Delta Pilots Bridge Plan, or the Delta Pilots Supplemental Annuity Plan. In consideration of all concessions contained in this TA and if the DB plan terminates we receive an unsecured $650 million dollar note. Some want to compare this to UAL's $550 million note, but remember UAL had a smaller DB plan (approximately 2/3 of ours and for a pilot group that is approximately equal in numbers to ours) and a larger DC plan (9%, then 11%, and now 15%).
*Recovery Compact. This item does not belong in a collective bargaining agreement. Our contract should cover pay, rules and working conditions. Further, it is insulting to the line pilot to suggest we need to gain management's trust. I do not believe a contract can mandate trust. Trust is built or destroyed from a history of actions.
*The $2.1 billion dollar claim is unsecured and not expected to be worth anything near $2.1 billion dollars.
*An $8 million dollar allowance to pay for our financial advisors and MEC business relating to this negotiation. Make no mistake, we are paying for this advice with our contract and it is excessive especially considering the results.
The new agreement is complicated and you it owe to yourself to study it carefully. I had the benefit of an entire MEC meeting to study it. After learning all I could, I cast my vote knowing this agreement went too far both with respect to what the company's needs are and as per your direction. When the ballot opens on this agreement, I will again cast a no vote because it is not fair, equitable or necessary. This was a pledge I made to you and one I intend to keep.
What happens if the membership rejects the agreement? The negotiating committees will most likely attempt to work on a new deal. As a result of this TA, the 3-man neutral arbitration panel is now supposed to make its decision no later than June 14. Ultimately, if we do not have an agreement and our contract is rejected, then ALPA still asserts we have the right to withhold our services. We spent great amounts of time, talent and dues money on this effort, and the strike committee is standing by in idle ready to go if called upon. If you reject this TA, I have great faith that a reasonable agreement, absent the above fatal flaws, will materialize within a short time period.
Fraternally,
Sam DeRosa
F/O Representative Council 44
Vice Chairman Council 44
By now you have had time to read the new tentative agreement. As you know, I was the only representative that voted against the agreement. I have been silent in order to give you time to see the agreement for yourself. Now it is time for me to explain my vote.
Since SLOA 50, I have spent time in the lounge, attended MEC meetings, helped run an LEC meeting and read countless emails. I used the time I spent in front of you in an attempt to understand your positions so that I could represent you to the best of my ability. At the MEC meetings we received detailed briefings containing in-depth polling conducted by the Wilson Center . At the LEC meeting we received not only feedback, but actual direction from you in the form of a unanimous resolution. In that resolution, I heard you loud and clear: no more concessions other than absolutely necessary to keep the company alive and respect the Bankruptcy Protection Letter. To confirm that I heard you correctly, I read this back many times in our face-to-face discussions. It seemed clear to me this was the direction of the majority of you, the pilots of Council 44.
After reading the agreement, then hearing our MEC Administration and professionals, I found that this TA clearly does not meet your direction or respect the Bankruptcy Protection Letter. Our analysis last fall determined the company only needed a fraction of their $325 million per year demand. We did SLOA 50 and gave them $140 million per year. The reason you were asked to give more than our fair share in SLOA 50 was to buy time so the negotiating committee could reach a fair and equitable negotiated agreement. If this TA passes, SLOA 50 becomes permanent plus a whole lot more. There are clearly some positive aspects of this agreement such as the preservation of work rules and the small monetary compensations in the form of the notes, the claim and small raises however, this TA falls far short of our goal of fair and equitable.
Below are some of my greatest concerns.
Section 1
*76 seat RJ's at DCI despite unequivocal direction from the line to the reps, and from the reps to the administration.
*The so-called "Mainline Growth" is tied to the fleet as of Jan 1, 2007 yet we already know the fleet is shrinking this year
*Loss of the furlough recall date. (August, 2008)
Section 3
*Full snap backs are predicated on corporate performance.
*The EMB rates are too low and represent the next B-scale.
Section 7
*Loss of the 6th week of vacation.
Section 14
*New sick leave policy enormously reduces our benefit.
*The formula for the anniversary change to June 1, 2006 makes the transition retroactive .
Section 26, Attachments & Exhibits
*A major gutting of our Disability and Survivorship (D&S) Plan. Remember this plan was funded and has not needed any corporate contributions since 1991. Further, the cost (not to exceed $60 million per year) for the pilot's sick leave and other legally permissible benefits will be paid from a trust funded by the D&S plan, and we still have to pay all of our premiums and deductibles.
*9% DC plan for all pilots plus 2 % 401K. This should have been higher. An 11% DC plan for a 25 year career compares to a 33% FAE DB plan.
*We agree not to object to losing the Delta Pilots Retirement Plan, the Western Air Lines Defined Benefit Plan, the Delta Pilots Bridge Plan, or the Delta Pilots Supplemental Annuity Plan. In consideration of all concessions contained in this TA and if the DB plan terminates we receive an unsecured $650 million dollar note. Some want to compare this to UAL's $550 million note, but remember UAL had a smaller DB plan (approximately 2/3 of ours and for a pilot group that is approximately equal in numbers to ours) and a larger DC plan (9%, then 11%, and now 15%).
*Recovery Compact. This item does not belong in a collective bargaining agreement. Our contract should cover pay, rules and working conditions. Further, it is insulting to the line pilot to suggest we need to gain management's trust. I do not believe a contract can mandate trust. Trust is built or destroyed from a history of actions.
*The $2.1 billion dollar claim is unsecured and not expected to be worth anything near $2.1 billion dollars.
*An $8 million dollar allowance to pay for our financial advisors and MEC business relating to this negotiation. Make no mistake, we are paying for this advice with our contract and it is excessive especially considering the results.
The new agreement is complicated and you it owe to yourself to study it carefully. I had the benefit of an entire MEC meeting to study it. After learning all I could, I cast my vote knowing this agreement went too far both with respect to what the company's needs are and as per your direction. When the ballot opens on this agreement, I will again cast a no vote because it is not fair, equitable or necessary. This was a pledge I made to you and one I intend to keep.
What happens if the membership rejects the agreement? The negotiating committees will most likely attempt to work on a new deal. As a result of this TA, the 3-man neutral arbitration panel is now supposed to make its decision no later than June 14. Ultimately, if we do not have an agreement and our contract is rejected, then ALPA still asserts we have the right to withhold our services. We spent great amounts of time, talent and dues money on this effort, and the strike committee is standing by in idle ready to go if called upon. If you reject this TA, I have great faith that a reasonable agreement, absent the above fatal flaws, will materialize within a short time period.
Fraternally,
Sam DeRosa
F/O Representative Council 44
Vice Chairman Council 44
