Originally Posted by
slowplay
The MEC was briefed on costing. Direct compensation is "hard" numbers. Much of the changes to Section 1 have very different costs in the eyes of management and ALPA (JV protections, code share restrictions, furlough protections) so are "soft" numbers. The manning changes created by this agreement are dependent on business plan execution so are "soft" numbers. All of that was briefed.
If Delta was going to save $1billion in RJ costs and put $1billion in your pocket instead how are you worse off?
As to "cost neutral"...again, this agreement takes money out of one of Delta's accounting silos and
puts it into ours, a significant plus for pilots. Delta management has a very different target audience (we're less than 1/6 of the employee group) and a lot of interested parties in New York City and Washington, D.C. Note that Bastian was at a financial conference both the day after the TA was announced and the day after our TA was ratified by the MEC "explaining" it to investors.
Nice media school reply: don't answer the question asked, but answer another with what you want to say.
I asked about costing, specifically about the productivity concessions. I spoke to a rep who told me the MEC has not seen real costing in years. So again, where is the costing on these concessions? Who directed the MEC to transfer overtime flying from senior to junior pilots?
From slowplay: "If Delta was going to save $1billion in RJ costs and put $1billion in your pocket instead how are you worse off?
"
So you are saying DAL is giving us $1B the took from the RJ's? Really?
And more like Bastian was bragging to the investors how this is cost neutral and "institutionalizes" our BK agreement.