Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
Shiznit, your playing with words doesn't change the facts. Since Delta pilots aren't cutting the checks for C2012, there couldn't possibly be any cost to Delta pilots, neutral or otherwise. C2012 was a cost neutral contract to Delta. Meaning every gain we got in the contract was fully funded by cuts in other areas. That's what our union brought us to ratify before Section 6 even began during a hugely profitable year for Delta. It's not my opinion, it's Richard and Ed's opinion.
Now you're the one spinning again (anyone surprised?) The bolded part above is absolutely NOT true. The contract is most certainly not self-funding.
What you are confusing (or more likely mis-representing) is the major savings that the company achieved were by accelerating retirements of the old RJ's rather than dealing with overhauling engines, heavy checks, high CASM, etc. I think you understand that, yet you continue to repeat this BS to further your agenda.
The often mis-represented comment about "cost neutral" was used during a conference call with investors [know your audience and what they want to hear.] Speaking about
the business as a whole, they did say that costs are neutral. It's the same way they talk about capacity restraint. How is it that they can (truthfully) say that we're not expanding in a big way when we have 200+ mainline aircraft coming in the next few years? It's because they can "spin" their statements anyway they want - in this case including DCI reductions in their comments about maintaining the "network's" capacity discipline. Don't want to go scaring the investors now do we?
To further drive the point, if Delta mgmt were able to find a way to double your pay while achieving savings elsewhere in the business that exceed the raise you got, would it mean that we PAID the company for your raise? As self-congratulatory as you are regarding your business acumen, I'm surprised you can't differentiate between two un-related items on a balance sheet.
We did not even come close to paying for our gains with concessions elsewhere in the contract. For you to assert otherwise is grasping at straws.
Spin, spin, spin...
So that's why our MEC brought us a cost neutral TA to sign. Delta's profits weren't "truly" record. [face palm]
See above. [I'm also "face palming"
]
Here's an idea Carl. Stop telling me what's wrong with ALPA, and explain how DPA is going to come in on day 1 and:
1. Replace all the essential functions that ALPA is currently providing, without significant interruption
2. Improve my life significantly enough that it justifies the risk you are injecting in my career
WRT to the risk in #2, I see the chances as somewhere between slim and none that DPA can get us back to even, let alone make any appreciable gains, in an acceptable timeframe for me. The risk far outweighs the easily promised (yet hard to deliver) reward of what you're selling.
^^^^ Queue Carl to come back and tell everyone that I'm selling fear, when in fact one only need look at USAir to see the an example of the risk v. reward playing out in real life^^^^^