Delta TA



Excellent explanation of the new JV contract details. This new language is definitely a win for the pilot group. After this video and today's negotiator notepad on the new sick policy, all my concerns have been addressed. I'm upgrading from firm to definite YES vote.
 
Last edited:
how exactly is the JV change a "win" for the pilots in your eyes?

Because I see , "pilots wanted company in compliance" so the solution was to change the metric to allow the company to be in compliance.


I'm not a DL pilot, but my understanding is for C2012 EASK was sold by the MEC as the metric that was needed over block hours....now all of the sudden it's block hours?


the "why change" slide...that says 4 A380s are parked as if more will be parked....Aren't those Malaysian A380s that are parked? Not Air France....please correct me if I'm wrong there
 
Last edited:
ATN_Pilot said:
Read the letter that Denny posted from the instructor council. They explain perfectly why JV is more likely to be a win than a loss.
Click to expand...
So let me see if I've got my head around it. The argument is in times of decline where there are less seats, block hours are better. When there is peak flying, block hours are worse? Assuming Delta actually grows the widebody fleet and doesn't just throw 757s on the routes it has the legs for?
 
ian said:
So let me see if I've got my head around it. The argument is in times of decline where there are less seats, block hours are better. When there is peak flying, block hours are worse? Assuming Delta actually grows the widebody fleet and doesn't just throw 757s on the routes it has the legs for?
Click to expand...

I can't remember if you're a Delta pilot or not. If you are, you should get your info from the road shows and not from people on the internet. Anything I tell you is second-hand info, so your best source of information isn't me. If you're not a Delta pilot, though, and are just curious, then this should suffice:

The old language was difficult to track and enforce. The MEC settled a grievance regarding it recently, in fact. So the first issue that had to be dealt with was making sure it was easy to track and enforce the language. Unenforceable language, no matter how many warm and fuzzy feelings it gives you, is worthless. So moving from EASKs to block-hours makes it far easier to track and enforce to make sure that the company is complying with what they've agreed to without a bunch of mathematical gymnastics. Furthermore, pilot jobs are always related to block-hours, not seat-miles (as long as you're looking at similar stage lengths, which we are here). So it makes a lot more sense to structure a scope provision around block-hours than it does around seat-miles or seat-kilometers.

So, with the new language, whether it's good or bad is dependent upon the gauge (size) of aircraft that both Delta and the JV partners are using, because EASKs factor in the number of seats carried. Right now Delta is using a smaller gauge on average than the partners. So let's say Delta decided to pull out some planes because the transatlantic market wasn't doing well. So Delta is now flying less flights, and less pilots are needed at Delta. With the current language, you just reduce the number of ASKs on the JV partners and they're good to go. Delta pilot jobs are reduced, but the JV partner hasn't had to reduce frequency. With the new language, though, if Delta pulls an airplane out of the market, which reduces block-hours, then the JV partners will have to do the same to keep the block-hour ratio in limits.

Of course, if you believe that the transatlantic market is going to grow significantly, then you're better off with the EASK language, because if a JV partner increases aircraft gauge without increasing the number of flights, then Delta would have to either increase gauge or increase frequency in order to keep the ratio within the limits.

So the language that you think is better is highly dependent on what you gamble the transatlantic market is going to do over the next few years. CNBC runs in my office around the clock, and I can tell you that all of the best financial minds in the world can't agree on such things, so any pilot who claims that he knows for sure is a liar. It's a gamble either way. So I would say it makes more sense to link the language to block-hours, which directly rather than indirectly affect pilot jobs, and is also much easier to track and enforce. But either way, it's nothing that is going to make a huge difference to pilot jobs, so getting all bent out of shape about it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When you're planning to add 800+ pilot jobs per year, and you're bickering over the slight possibility of losing 100 jobs at some point in the future, you're just being stubborn. Furthermore, it's offset by the tighter limits on outsourced RJs, which is also important. So this is really not the big issue that the APC clowns would like you to believe.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I can't remember if you're a Delta pilot or not. If you are, you should get your info from the road shows and not from people on the internet. Anything I tell you is second-hand info, so your best source of information isn't me. If you're not a Delta pilot, though, and are just curious, then this should suffice:

The old language was difficult to track and enforce. The MEC settled a grievance regarding it recently, in fact. So the first issue that had to be dealt with was making sure it was easy to track and enforce the language. Unenforceable language, no matter how many warm and fuzzy feelings it gives you, is worthless. So moving from EASKs to block-hours makes it far easier to track and enforce to make sure that the company is complying with what they've agreed to without a bunch of mathematical gymnastics. Furthermore, pilot jobs are always related to block-hours, not seat-miles (as long as you're looking at similar stage lengths, which we are here). So it makes a lot more sense to structure a scope provision around block-hours than it does around seat-miles or seat-kilometers.

So, with the new language, whether it's good or bad is dependent upon the gauge (size) of aircraft that both Delta and the JV partners are using, because EASKs factor in the number of seats carried. Right now Delta is using a smaller gauge on average than the partners. So let's say Delta decided to pull out some planes because the transatlantic market wasn't doing well. So Delta is now flying less flights, and less pilots are needed at Delta. With the current language, you just reduce the number of ASKs on the JV partners and they're good to go. Delta pilot jobs are reduced, but the JV partner hasn't had to reduce frequency. With the new language, though, if Delta pulls an airplane out of the market, which reduces block-hours, then the JV partners will have to do the same to keep the block-hour ratio in limits.

Of course, if you believe that the transatlantic market is going to grow significantly, then you're better off with the EASK language, because if a JV partner increases aircraft gauge without increasing the number of flights, then Delta would have to either increase gauge or increase frequency in order to keep the ratio within the limits.

So the language that you think is better is highly dependent on what you gamble the transatlantic market is going to do over the next few years. CNBC runs in my office around the clock, and I can tell you that all of the best financial minds in the world can't agree on such things, so any pilot who claims that he knows for sure is a liar. It's a gamble either way. So I would say it makes more sense to link the language to block-hours, which directly rather than indirectly affect pilot jobs, and is also much easier to track and enforce. But either way, it's nothing that is going to make a huge difference to pilot jobs, so getting all bent out of shape about it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When you're planning to add 800+ pilot jobs per year, and you're bickering over the slight possibility of losing 100 jobs at some point in the future, you're just being stubborn. Furthermore, it's offset by the tighter limits on outsourced RJs, which is also important. So this is really not the big issue that the APC clowns would like you to believe.
Click to expand...
see the post above your last one, I am not, so the internet is all i have for my information. thanks for that bigger explanation, it makes sense
 
Trip7 said:


Excellent explanation of the new JV contract details. This new language is definitely a win for the pilot group. After this video and today's negotiator notepad on the new sick policy, all my concerns have been addressed. I'm upgrading from firm to definite YES vote.
Click to expand...


What was said about the sick policy?
 
Seggy said:
What was said about the sick policy?
Click to expand...

To summarize it said that sick calls were up 30% at Delta since C2012 while other carriers sick calls remained flat. 20% of pilots at Delta consist of 50% of total sick hours used at Delta. The policy was created to stop the abuse but not affect the average pilot, which the thresholds for verification and medical release respect.

The Chief pilot office is taken out of the medical verification process and a separate department that complies with privacy laws handles verification.

Medical release only requests medical records pertaining to the most recent sick call and days off surrounding it.

If a pilot uses less than 80 hours of sick time half the unused hours up to 80 hours will be added to your long term disability benefit at your pay rate. For example, if you use 10 hours of sick time 35 hours ((80-10)/2) will be added to your LTD.

I found the new sick policy to be more than reasonable.
 
ian said:
So let me see if I've got my head around it. The argument is in times of decline where there are less seats, block hours are better. When there is peak flying, block hours are worse? Assuming Delta actually grows the widebody fleet and doesn't just throw 757s on the routes it has the legs for?
Click to expand...

What the charts clearly showed were the company was out of compliance with the AF/KLM/Alitalia JV not because they reduced widebody body flying, but simply because Widebodies were redeployed to Latin America and the Pacific. Company wide widebody block hours have been relatively flat.

The new block hour language gives simpler and more effective language for theater flying but also looks at the big picture. Global Flying Protections trump theatre protections. As long as Company Global Widebody block hours stay steady or increase, no jobs will be lost. This new language has more common sense and let's the company move Widebodies to where the profits are best.
 
I'm fairly new to Delta, but not new to negotiations. Here's my take on the sick leave issue after reading the official info and then way too many pages of discussion here. Many people continue to argue that requiring a sick verification is a slight to our professionalism and as such is a reason to vote against this TA. However, we need to remember that the company already has contract language to require verification, so getting upset that we have to verify at some point is pointless. We have to and that's that. All this TA would do is change the metric to something (I believe) to be more fair to everyone. The other changes to sick leave only help eliminate the "game playing" that some pilots choose to engage in. I can in no way support provisions that only benefit a few who are unscrupulous enough to employ them, and therefore have no problem with those changes. I guess I don't see why this is such a big issue. While it is a change and a "give", so to speak, it isn't overreaching from management and doesn't make the whole deal any less palatable.
 
We'll have a beer and talk about a "certain history" when it comes to third party medical facilities.
 
Like I've said, I've got a foot in the TA in the eyes of a person fifteen years younger and a foot in the world of those that are fifteen years older.

I remember the "good old days" and the "bad old days" and reference that to where we are today, success-wise and what's on the table.

That's probably the closest you're going to see me debating the TA on the open internet. Opinion, yes, but ehh, I'm old and tired of debating on the internet.
 
CAPIP1998 said:
I'm fairly new to Delta, but not new to negotiations. Here's my take on the sick leave issue after reading the official info and then way too many pages of discussion here. Many people continue to argue that requiring a sick verification is a slight to our professionalism and as such is a reason to vote against this TA. However, we need to remember that the company already has contract language to require verification, so getting upset that we have to verify at some point is pointless. We have to and that's that. All this TA would do is change the metric to something (I believe) to be more fair to everyone. The other changes to sick leave only help eliminate the "game playing" that some pilots choose to engage in. I can in no way support provisions that only benefit a few who are unscrupulous enough to employ them, and therefore have no problem with those changes. I guess I don't see why this is such a big issue. While it is a change and a "give", so to speak, it isn't overreaching from management and doesn't make the whole deal any less palatable.
Click to expand...
to me, the biggest problem with the changes is that voluntary verification is gone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top