Alan Shore

Did I not see a question about providing medical plans to retirees above 65?

Alan Shore

Agreed. I believe I saw a question about that as well.

gzsg

Not taking a position on this, but each 1% hourly increase approximately $20 million. So 10% would cost $20 million annually.

Purple Drank

I agree that 10% is an abysmally inadequate penalty here. If the company can blow off its scope obligations for a mere $20 million/year...my gosh.

We must demand they follow the contract, and apply pressure accordingly (whatever that means). After all, integrity is one of their "rules of the road."

index

Exactly. Scope is not for sale. Any "penalty" imposed on the company should be painful for them and beneficial for us. It should ongoing and continuous until they get back in compliance.

Why would we want to allow them to do now what we would not allow them to do before when we negotiated the scope "benefit"?

hitimefurl

Aren't you the guy from the DPA um chitchat forum that say the company can easily afford to pay us a billion? Even if you did your math wrong $200 million is a little more than the MSRP for a big shiny new Boeing. That's a horrible precedent to set for allowing them to buy our parts of the contract.

Firsttimeflyer

$200 million is probably the number you were looking for there. That is a drop in the bucket when you are talking about the profits they are making, the future profits they will make as the new more efficient aircraft come on line, the cost cutting that has happened at the regional level etc. they have made it through the hard times, survived the fuel price hikes which are essentially stabilized, an now it is time to pay the people that have given a large amount of money over the years.

Sink r8

Some things are important, but already well-covered. I wanted to emphasize large-scale Scope more:

Alter Ego
Subcontracting
Foreign Ownership
JV's with Foreign Carriers
Cabotage
DCI Flying
Change of Control
Fragmentation/transfer
Successorship/merger

I'm leery of someone taking DAL private, or some similar deal as we shed debt, but I don't know a lot about those areas. The last three are at the bottom because something had to be at the bottom, but they're a big deal.

Sink r8

#55 is a horrible question. I'm absolutely against OOBS, but how do I make that clear in this question? It's a priority of mine that they're NOT implemented. If I rank them first, am I saying I hate them most (per #52), or love them? If I rank them last... am I saying the issue is just not that important to me?

For people that are on the fence on this issue, I would suggest that we shouldn't go all in. #52, B, allows for swaps but not drops/pick-ups. I don't want any OOBS, but if we must, it should be for guys that want to trade trips. We don't want the company to be able to make one-way transfers of flying between bases after the lines are published, and we shouldn't want individuals to have that power. Otherwise, one or more guys can WS, then send out, then WS and send out, then WS and send out... until there is no open time left in the base.

tsquare

Credit Suisse just put a target price of $56/share on DAL. If that happens, we are a $47.6 Billion company. Being taken private would be pretty difficult at that cap, but if there were any noise about it, it would rapidly increase. JMHO, but I think there is nothing to worry about there.