Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
The only difference is the baseline that you use to measure from. Elvis is accounting for each year's raise on a dollar basis. You're accounting for each year's raise and adding it cummulatively from the basis of date of signing. Your method double and triple counts the raises IMO. Elvis' method is what most folks use to cost account a contract.
But it misses the point IMO. ANY cost increases to Delta from the TA are FULLY FUNDED by concessions in other parts of the contract. That's why sleepy ED, RA and the beaver are all on the record stating that this TA is COST NEUTRAL to Delta.
Carl
Who cares? This DPA talking point is almost as good as the "his vs. her" gender-gate talking point in their recent news letter. Yes, ALPA hates all female pilots, and spent precious negotiating capital sliding this little slam in under our nose. Fortunately the DPA is here to save us from the politically incorrect!
I could care less if this TA SAVES the company money. It can be cost neutral to them all they want. As long as they are taking $ from a bucket that is not currently allocated to pilots then it isn't cost neutral to us. That's all I care about.
If they sent us a contract that said "we've recently figured out how to run jet engines off of sunshine, and we're willing to pass along 50% of the savings to you pilots in your next contract," they would turn around and tell the media that the contract is a net positive for them. Funny math works for anyone.
1. $ saved on RJ maintenance, fuel burn, etc is being spent on a new pilot contract.
2. The two sides of that equation roughly equal each other - hence their ability to call this cost neutral.
3. This is why I think we will not see a quick sweetening of the pot with a NO vote. Once our side of this equation tips to the positive, the proposition is no longer appealing to mgmt and they will pursue another avenue. See ya in a few months to meet about meeting sometime . . . .
Standing by for a shelling.