Delta Negotiations Update
- Thread starter Seggy
- Start date
mastermags
Well-Known Member *giggity*
Where are you seeing these details
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
Like always, the details are in the language, but it does appear that the MEC and NC were able to address the pilot's concerns with the failed TA while still keeping (actually, it looks like increasing) the value.
Calm, dispassionate, analytic thought and no "Well, they'd never do that" because, of course, you bet your sweet ass they would.
ian
Well-Known Member
Still a lot of concessions in return for industry standard oay
PeanuckleCRJ
Poodle Wrangler
I'm cautiously optimistic with what I've seen so far.
Basic details of JV stuff have been leaked: overall improvement, remain EASKS, the company is in compliance but other added protections.
Home run? Probably not, but this may be multiple bases. No vote justified already last year as far as I'm concerned. (plus it's been hilarious seeing Curly and JPIV eat crow on facebook)
Basic details of JV stuff have been leaked: overall improvement, remain EASKS, the company is in compliance but other added protections.
Home run? Probably not, but this may be multiple bases. No vote justified already last year as far as I'm concerned. (plus it's been hilarious seeing Curly and JPIV eat crow on facebook)
ian
Well-Known Member
if only @Trip7 would do it here.
I will admit I was impressed with JP and CC admitting it on FB, took some stones.
I don't like the sick carve outs. Voluntary verification needs to stay or the rolling 12 month needs to go, but i know i'm in the minority on that one.
VB and OE trip pulls have "we didn't think they would do that" written all over them.
Trip7
Well-Known Member
Wish I would do what on here? I already admitted I was wrong about TA2015 a while ago.
The debate on here was about if the company's RJ proposal was in the final agreement it whether or not it was acceptable. It was a good philosophical debate and there are pilots on both sides of the argument (just not on here). Turns out it wasn't needed. Overall I'm very pleased with the agreement. Excellent job by the NC getting that last minute adjustment to the SL AIP to alleviate the broken bone type scenario.
Besides the DCI Scope being left unchanged wouldn't you say my personal proposal 15 days ago was pretty close?
Last edited:
PeanuckleCRJ
Poodle Wrangler
As an extreme hard no last round, I've pressed to test on how OE will play out... the teeth is out of it. It's basically a minimal give (how often do you really see LCA trips for sale in open time?). VB has much more of a potential to be an issue, but the language needs to be seen on how we can opt out from it.
Winding my clock.
Basically we know no more than anyone's reps do and the meeting is in two weeks.
@Richman knows that he'll wake up with a severed horses head between him and his lovely ladyfriend if he BS'es me, so, I'm winding my clock.
Very suspicious. Some good, some bad, but having four contracts under my belt, it's always in the language. Rates are the last thing on my mind because I can give you a 90% pay raise and still give you a pay cut depending on the language.
Last edited:
ian
Well-Known Member
See below
Wish that you would admit you were wrong about the DCI scope carveouts you were so adamantly for. It was clearly a super toxic item that was pulled.
Like I said for the sick portion to get me to a yes either the voluntary verification needs to return (preferably that option) or the rolling 12 month needs to go. That's coming from a guy that has called in sick 1 time in 2 years. I don't even think I'd ever hit the 100 hours in the near future but I want the option.
My concern with it is the ability for trips to be pulled between PCS runs.i feel like it's going to also hinder people's ability for Q drops.
They both have "we didn't think they would do that" written all over it. VB more so. I'd like to see language where for the VB to be approved after the test period it go to memrat vs just mec approval. I'm sure the cancelation language will also be air tight in favor of the company where we really won't have the ability to cancel it
I guess I'll rephrase, there aren't a lot of concessions still in it but there are some big ones. Sick leave, oe trip pulls, vb, and we are still throwing new hires under the bus with a 2 year seat lock and such low training pay and not covering hotels
Trip7
Well-Known Member
As you can see from my post below, I only supported if it was needed to close a deal. Turns out it wasn't needed.
I'm guessing you approve of the removal of catastrophic illness from the rolling 12 look back making the rolling 12 your biggest concern with the sick AIP. Of course we'll have to wait on the definition of catastrophic illness.
ian
Well-Known Member
I do. I think it's a step in the right direction for sure. I think the voluntary verification clause would have taken care of the the catastrophic issue.