The Pilot TA

Jan 14, 2004
235
0
Pay cut of 14% from LOA #46 followed by annual pay raises starting January 1,2007.

Additional pay increases tied to Company financial performance (protection against the
Contract ’96 debacle).

• Limited authority to operate 71-76 seat DCI jets, provided that no pilot on the
current seniority list (Troy Kane and above) is placed on furlough. This

protection is not subject to a force majeure clause.
• There are no changes to any of our duty rigs or scheduling (except for Hawaii
reporting); our quality of life items.
• The MPPP will be terminated and the money will be placed in your account that
you control.
• Notes and Equity to return a substantial part of our concessions.
• Duration of 3.5 years (12/31/2009, same as LOA #46).
• The effective date of the agreement will be June 1, 2006 if the T/A is ratified and
is approved by the Bankruptcy Court.


The following is a summary of the T/A:

Scope
• 76-seaters will be allowed at DCI, with strict limitations on numbers, and with

incentives for mainline growth.
• If the Company furloughs a pilot on the current seniority list (Troy Kane and above), DCI
cannot fly any of the 71-76 seat jets with more than 70 seats. In fact, they must then
physically remove the excess seats from ALL such aircraft for the balance of this
contract.
o Beginning January 1, 2007, DCI is allowed to operate fifteen jets
configured with 71-76 seats. They may operate these aircraft prior to this
date, but with a maximum of 70 seats.
o On January 1, 2008, DCI is allowed to operate an additional fifteen 71-76
seat jets.
o Additional 71-76 seaters can be added, but only on the basis of mainline
aircraft growth (three 71-76 seaters for one growth mainline aircraft).


• Delete minimum block hours and planned percentages.
• Delete designated flying block hours.
• Change in control provisions allow flexibility in Chapter 11, but preserve
essential protections in an airline-to-airline transaction during Chapter 11.
• Delete the required recall of all furloughed pilots by August 1, 2008.
• Delete the requirement to be at a 75 hour ALV in certain categories for 3 months
prior to furloughing. Maintain the three month furlough notice requirement.





Compensation




• Composite hourly pay rates will remain at 14% below the LOA 46 rates for the
balance of 2006.
• On January 1, 2007, rates will be increased 1.5%.
• On January 1, 2008, rates will increase by at least 1.5%, and may increase up to
6% based on corporate financial performance.
• On January 1, 2009, rates will increase by at least 1.5% above the minimum 2008
rates, and may increase up to 6% above the actual 2008 rates, based on corporate
financial performance.
• On December 31, 2009 rates will increase another 1%.
• See attached minimum and maximum pay rate tables.
• The 12 year captain rate for the EMB-190/CRJ-900 will be $95.70 on June 1,
2006 and subject to the above adjustments.
• The 12 year captain rate for the EMB-195 will be $112.50 on June 1, 2006 and subject to
the above adjustments.
• Delete night pay.
• International pay is $5.00/hr for captains and $3.00/hr for F/Os.
• Increase profit sharing pool divided among all employees from LOA #46 to a 15% payout
at first dollar of pre-tax income; 20% payout on pre-tax income over $1.5B divided
proportional to W-2 income.
• Domestic per diem is $1.85/hr.
• International per diem is $2.40/hr.






Hotels




• Expanded hotel reviews and a stated preference for nationally branded hotels.






Relocation




• To be eligible for relocation at company expense, a pilot must move within 125 miles of
his new base. Pilots who currently have a moving entitlement retain their eligibility.
• Increase lump sum to cover miscellaneous moving expenses to $2000.






Vacations




• Effective April 1, 2007, reduce the value of a vacation day to 3 hours.
• Effective April 1, 2007, delete the 6th week of vacation and reduce the vacation
accrual rate.






Administrative Flying




• Administrative pilots may fly a rotation from open time without a line pilot being paid for
the rotation. The rotation may only be removed within 96 hours of report and, in most
instances, it must have gone through at least one PCS run prior to removal by the
administrative pilot.






Training




• Improve MEC oversight of CQ material preparation.
• Clarification of pay time for distributed training that is not on a CD, but could be
in another form of media, such as a workbook.






Hours of Service




• Sixty minute report for flight segments to/from Hawaii.
• Increase DBMS displays for flight hour and PWA limitations.






Sick Leave





• The new sick leave year will be from June 1 – May 31 for all pilots.
• Pilots in their 9th year and above will have 240 sick leave hours each year.
• On a rolling 3 year basis, a pilot will have 240 hours at full pay and the rest at 75% pay.
• Pilots returning from disability will have their full pay sick leave credit hours
recharged (once in a career).






Scheduling




• The company must comply with the TLV limits commencing April 1, 2007.
• A Delta jumpseat reservation will now satisfy the commuting policy.



General





• Flow back jumpseat to be negotiated with Alaska, Northwest and Continental



immediately and with US Airways and United beginning January 1, 2007.
• A flight attendant jumpseat may be occupied by a pilot, but only if it is the only
seat available on the aircraft and no flight attendant (working or not) has
requested the jumpseat.
• Yearly non-rev pass fee of 50 dollars maximum, and no more than other
employees.
• Pilots on the FOQA monitoring team will be covered under Section 24 J. 2. and
not subject to GS charges to ALPA.
• LOA #52 establishes the Civil Reserve Air Fleet procedures.
• Financial advisory fees and major ALPA costs paid by Company.




Medical and Dental Benefits



• Increase premiums for future retired pilots and survivors prior to Medicare
eligibility.
• Provide “access only†medical coverage post-Medicare eligibility.
• Provide for modifications to medical insurance to capture savings from the Health
Coverage Tax Credit.




Retirement, Insurance, and Disability and Survivor Benefits



• Money Purchase Pension Plan accounts will be distributed to individual pilots for
self-directed investment.
• Defined Contribution (DC) Plan contribution of a flat 9% to all pilots after Pilot
Defined Benefit (DB) Plan termination.
• Maintain company 2% 401(k) cash contribution.
• ALPA will not oppose DB Plan termination.
• Implement Roth 401(k) accounts and permit contributions up to the IRS limits for
all plans.
• Disabled pilots receive disability income until mandatory FAA retirement age.
• Disabled pilots will continue to receive DC Plan and 401(k) contributions at two
times their disability benefit. This provides a retirement benefit for a disabled
pilot for the years of service while disabled.
• Income offset once a pilot on long-term disability (LTD) achieves outside income
that equals LTD income.
• Limited neutral medical examiner process for continued LTD eligibility.
• $500,000 life insurance (with guaranteed insurability) replaces current survivor
annuity beginning 1/1/08.
• Life insurance decreases to $250,000 on retirement, and then steps down in
$50,000 segments during first five years of retirement, ending with the current
$10,000 benefit.
• Company authorized to expend up to $60 million per year from the D&S Trust to
pay legally permissible pilot expenses. Establish D&S Trust re-funding
mechanism.
• Amend D&S Plan to assure that only persons who are or have been on the
seniority list (and their survivors and beneficiaries) are eligible to be beneficiaries
of the D&S Trust.
• Amend D&S Plan to clarify that in the event of DB Plan termination, disability
benefits are offset by calculated (not actual) retirement benefits.
• Clarify MPPP offset in the event of DB Plan termination.




Bankruptcy Protection Covenant, ALPA Claim, and Notes



• The Bankruptcy Protection Covenant is an extensive legal document that
supersedes the LOA #46 Bankruptcy Protection Letter.
• The company cannot file another Section 1113 motion to reject the PWA during
this bankruptcy unless in imminent danger of losing its DIP financing and
satisfaction of other tests.
• Legal protections for ALPA and its representatives.
• The company must propose and may only support a Plan of Reorganization
(POR) that contains the ALPA Notes, the ALPA Claim (equity), and other terms,
including assumption of the PWA as modified.
• If the company's POR does not comply with the ALPA terms, procedures are
established to return to the PWA in its entirety as it existed prior to LOA #50.
• $650 million note or cash (at company option) in consideration of contract
concessions if the DB plan terminates. MEC to determine allocation.
• $2.1 billion bankruptcy claim in consideration of contract concessions. In a
bankruptcy, a claim is usually paid in equity (stock in the reorganized company
when it exits bankruptcy). The value of equity resulting from a claim will depend
on the value of the company at exit from bankruptcy and the size of the total
claim pool. The value of the stock is usually much less than the nominal value of
the claim itself. For example, in the United Airlines bankruptcy, at the time of
exit from bankruptcy, the newly-issued United stock traded at about 24% of the
nominal value of the claim; today the stock is trading at about 16% of the nominal
value of the claim.
• The MEC may be able to decide that the notes, cash and equity described above
may be allocated to qualified retirement plans, up to Section 415© limits.



Recovery Compact



• Process established to repair and improve employee-management relations.

Delta’s Section 1113 © demands that were not achieved

• 19.5% pay cut with no pay raises
• Delete 401 (k) company contribution
• Five year duration
• Delete all furlough protections
• No financial returns
• $325 million concessions per year and no recognition of DB Plan termination
• 79-seat jet DCI aircraft
• Delete the change of control provisions
• Establish a sick leave reliability program and impose draconian sick leave terms
• Minutes under offset by minutes over
• 15 minute release per duty period
• No captain on relief crew for flights over 12 hours
• Change max scheduled duty time
 
I'm just guessing that you don't run with the crowd that will carry the vote, 9. If they vote this down, they are asking for a judge to impose something alot worse. Allowing DL to put 30 76 seaters in the fleet w/o mainline growth, eliminating the requirement to recall current furloughees, and getting 2/3 of what ALPA asked for in a note to replace the pension plan is not bad.

Compare that to what other carriers in BK "asked" of their pilots and you will find you have done pretty good.

Perhaps you are one of the furloughed pilots?
 
From everything I've heard from the pilots, their biggest point of contention was the SCOPE. The pilots made it very clear to DALPA that the most important issue was SCOPE and now it appears that this is the thing they caved on. The 14% paycut is what they've already taken. All the DALPA boards are screaming VOTE NO but when it comes down to the actual, individual votes, I'd guess they'll vote YES.

fyi WT, this is JUST AS BAD as the others took in BK. Don't forget that DALPA has already given....twice! How much was that first give back? 1 BILLION!!! Wow! Any pilot reading your post is going to have an issue with YOU when you never acknowledge just how much they've already given.
 
And I have an issue with you for failing to grasp that you were overpaid by $1B/year prior to last December. I don't care if you've now given 90% of your contract if your pay was so far out of line w/ your competitors for so long. You can be glad DL management was able to prop the company up out of BK for 3 years longer than UA so you could enjoy it. How much did you put in the bank, surely knowing the day of reckoning would be coming?

And since you think this TA is so bad, would be so kind as to post the 140/150 seater rates for UA, US, and NW and let me know how DL pilots stack up?

30 CR705s is nothing compared with what other airlines gave and will be a moot point if DL orders the 190 or 195 which I fully expect. The economics of flying a 90 seater w/ 76 seats do not at all compare favorably to operating a true 100 seater that is superior in every way to anything Bombardier builds. I'd far rather see and fly the 190 and I'd rather do it w/ DL employees. DL could be way ahead of its legacy peers if it orders a boatload of those planes and then aggressively deploys them.

Despite the rhetoric, DL pilots will vote yes because this TA is not near as bad as it could have been. And given that DL has the ability to grow the airline using Delta Connection and mainline, you will not be left out in the cold...although you won't get everything you wanted.

I'm glad there is a recognition of the need for improved mgmt-employee relationships and I will applaud whoever moves first to improve things. A recognition that yesterday has past is a good place to start. Making the most of where one is today is far more likely to result in something positive.
 
Well before I can declare "who" won, I need to know (bottom line) HOW MUCH did DALPA give back ??

I DO know, that they DID NOT give back $305/$325 Million !

It will be interesting to see if DL tries to find "other means" to get the $$$ it DID NOT get from Dalpa !!


NH/BB's
 
If the company and the union were smart,(I realize that is assuming way too much), they would at the table right now fixing the furlough requirement. DL is operating at critical staffing levels right now. There was absolutely no reason to delete a requirement to recall the remaining 490 pilots by the end of 2008. Scope is huge folks and if there was one thing that could kill this TA, you've found it. Remember, in the company's testimony, scope was a no cost item. I do not know if it will be enough to kill it entirely, but this was a asinine request by the company that now jeopardizes the ratification.
As of right now, count one "no" vote.
 
luv,
I have to agree with you that ditching the furlough requirement seemed to not be the highest priority item if DL is serious about expanding with a 100 seater - which probably still couldn't show up for 18-24 months at the earliest.

As for scope, remember that DL has had a much more liberal scope clause than other airlines for a long time - how do you think DL connection got as far as it is today and it hasn't come at the cost of DL pilot jobs. DL used regional jets to expand its network to cities DL would have never served, to add frequencies in markets where adding add'l mainline aircraft would be adding too much capacity, and by adding new point to point routes that could have never worked with mainline equipment.

The best solution to making this contract work is if DL orders a new 100 seater such as the EMB 190/195 and fast. They will have a huge competitive advantage over their legacy peers and it will be flown by mainline pilots - which is just fine with me.

And remember, scope is not an issue for pilots who are currently on the active payroll. DL obviously traded the requirement to recall furloughees for guaranteeing that they will not furlough existing pilots. Therefore, current active pilots are safe. Scope is an issue of principle if it doesn't affect you personally. And I suspect the vast majority of DL pilots will consider that they could have done alot worse with issues that more directly affect them in another contract scenario.
 
It looks terrible...until you look at the pilot contract at USAirways...where the pilots cowered in fear and allowed their contract to be gutted. This is not very much fun, but this looks to me like far and away the best contract any pilot group has negotiated at a failed carrier. I am not in tune with the sentiments of the DL pilots..but my gut tells me it will pass. Greeter
 
As for scope, remember that DL has had a much more liberal scope clause than other airlines for a long time - how do you think DL connection got as far as it is today and it hasn't come at the cost of DL pilot jobs.

It absolutely has come at the cost of pilot jobs. DL has lost almost a quarter of its mainline fleet since 9/11. DL went from 10,000 pilots to less than 6,000. Meanwhile, the RJ fleet has nearly doubled over the same time.

DL has replaced mainline with RJ's on over 200 routes over the past decade. Even cities as large as Milwaukee and Montreal have been completely turned over to RJ flights. Hubs like CVG and SLC used to each have 200+ mainline departures, now have barely 100.

And remember, scope is not an issue for pilots who are currently on the active payroll.

Not true. If you are an FO at DL and DL continues to replace mainline planes with RJ's, your time to upgrade to Captain gets longer and longer. Not to mention that some junior captains could get bumped back down to FO if too many planes leave the fleet.
 
thank you for your fair assessment, Greeter.

Flyer,
I want to see DL grow just like everyone but the reality is that the mainline airplanes that have been removed from service are 20+ year old 737s and 762s and gas guzzling, range inferior MD11s which just about every other legacy carrier ditched years ago. Given that the non-crew economics of those planes are so poor compared with current technology, you have to thank God that DL has held onto them as long as they have. DL has removed just 3 widebody aircraft from the fleet since it filed for BK and those were old generation 763s. No 757s, MD80s, or widebodies other than the MD11s have been removed from the fleet.

And you also have to believe that DL despserately needs a true 100 seater and they know it. And with the contract you are going to approve, DL will have the ability to put a 100 seater in mainline - because the economics of doing so are fully competitive if not superior with putting RJs at Delta Connection for the first time!

And your statement about YUL is simply incorrect because I just booked travel to that city on Delta mainline equipment.

DL is working its widebody fleet harder than they ever have which certainly should be creating some advancement opportunities. When 30 airplanes move from flying 10 hrs/day to 16 hrs/day, there are and will be growth opportunities. And it is very obvious that DL's int'l fleet cannot consist solely of 767s as evidenced by DL's current decision making process regarding currently ordered 777s and/or 787s, A350s, or some version of immediately available A340s. Plus, DL management says they are actively looking for used domestic narrowbodies for the fleet.

DL is more positioned to grow than they have been for a very long time. They understand that in order to keep costs down, they have to grow - just like the LCCs do. DL has some of the lowest costs in the legacy industry and that advantage has to be used to create opportunites for DL - and it will be. And they are using those costs to push into markets that DL has been unable to compete in for years because of high costs or an inferior product - both of which are being addressed. At the same time, DL's revenue disadvantage vs. the industry is rapidly improving.

You will see growth at the top and bottom of the airline in the very near future both from more efficient use of current airplanes and via the addition of new aircraft.
 
Observations regarding recall and scope:

Recall- If staffing is at "critical levels" and that is based on scheduling to maximum efficiency (which, for some odd reason, I don't believe that mgmt does this), I would say that some furloughees should be brought back. If the thought is to bring back people just to get a paycheck into their hands again, that doesn't make much sense. From a business perspective (not management or union), it would make sense to maximize efficiency of the lines (which I really don't think DL is anywhere close to that based on remarks I've heard over and over) and staff appropriately. Again...if "critical levels" are at the utmost efficiency, bring 'em back, but if it isn't efficient, that is what should be worked on first. Inefficiency costs alot of money and it doesn't make sense to bring back nearly 500 pilots, adding to costs, when management clearly has not been efficient in their planning. Treat the disease and not the symptoms.

Scope- I understand the arguments against. Giving on the scope issue means handing over the benefits of future growth to contract carriers. However, like all of this, you have to look at the business issues at hand. Is there really any way for DL to expand within the next 3 years of this agreement? There are no large AC orders and ordering new or leasing large birds costs a heck of alot more than farming out the small cities to RJs (many markets that really shouldn't have larger equipment on them as it is) and re-deploy the larger planes. DL has already done this largely with the 76 fleet (and the 777's which were flying, for God knows why, to Florida) but I think that they have re-configured about as much as possible without pulling more mid-size equipment out of small markets. But again...ordering large equipment right now is just not feasible so how do you expect jobs to grow anytime soon? To hold the line and then some on the scope means not allowing additional revenue into the system (and maybe profits?).

But these are just my observations...and I know that they are touchy subjects so I'm not trying to begin a war but just present things from a business perspective. Trust me...I do understand the short-term implications of giving on these issues but shouldn't we focus on the long term? Sometimes...scratch that...you always need to take a couple of steps back to get further ahead in the long run.

That being said...it doesn't matter what happens if the gov't keeps letting the oil industry exploit the consumer and artificially triple the price of the product. No carrier will make it if a sustained increase takes hold. Just when we thought we were out of the woods...
 
"That being said...it doesn't matter what happens if the gov't keeps letting the oil industry exploit the consumer and artificially triple the price of the product. No carrier will make it if a sustained increase takes hold. Just when we thought we were out of the woods..."

I am not so sure. For one, I have never, in over 30 years at this job, been so happy to see a headline that the airlines are raising prices by $10 a ticket to cover fuel costs.

In my perfect world, fuel would be fixed cost, and only the effeciency and service of any airline would assure its survival. But that is not fair, because business decisions like that of the SWA to hedge SHOULD be taken as proper competitive actions...and well deserved rewards.

It is weird, inded , that we may actually find airlines MAKING moneys at $70+ oil..because thay are passing on the costs.

Good luck to us all, Greeter.
 
"That being said...it doesn't matter what happens if the gov't keeps letting the oil industry exploit the consumer and artificially triple the price of the product. No carrier will make it if a sustained increase takes hold. Just when we thought we were out of the woods..."

I am not so sure. For one, I have never, in over 30 years at this job, been so happy to see a headline that the airlines are raising prices by $10 a ticket to cover fuel costs.

In my perfect world, fuel would be fixed cost, and only the effeciency and service of any airline would assure its survival. But that is not fair, because business decisions like that of the SWA to hedge SHOULD be taken as proper competitive actions...and well deserved rewards.

It is weird, inded , that we may actually find airlines MAKING moneys at $70+ oil..because thay are passing on the costs.

Good luck to us all, Greeter.

Well that is the ONE good thing about people being taken for all that they have at the pump...they are willing to pay more for services that use the black gold to fuel them. Before the spike in gasoline prices, airfare increases would not work. It wasn't b/c the airlines didn't want them to, it's because the consumer was too sensitive to the changes. Now, though, they are much less sensative. THAT is the only thing that will make me sing the praises of the crooked oil companies and our gov't that encourages the situation (and profits from it).
 

Latest posts