Originally Posted by
johnso29
Actually in your post that I quoted you stated 42% and 30%-40%.
Just because my post included those numbers, doesn't mean you can take them out of context and apply them to something else to completely change the meaning of what I was saying. Either you are misunderstanding what I said, or you are being dishonest in an attempt to discredit what I said. Which is it?
Originally Posted by
johnso29
Smoke and mirrors? I don't recall DALPA stating that all Delta pilots would make SWA pay. But that was never my point. My point was how SWA pilots got there. They got there by taking small bites of the apple. An apple provided by a healthy company that has been profitable for over 30 years. The SWA pilots have never negotiated rates close to C2K. So if you want to make SWA earnings, it's going to take an approach different then you're hoping DPA will take.
DALPA provided a rate comparison with SWA pilots. The conversion factor they used did not take into consideration SWA's work rules, which allows their pilots to fly an average of 12 days/month and make substantially more than Delta's narrowbody domestic pilots. If you're going to compare our 777 or 747-400 pilots to SWA's pilots, then I think you're being intellectually dishonest.
And if we hadn't taken the 42% pay cut, I would be all FOR taking SWAPA's approach. Under normal circumstances, that is the way it's supposed to work and I strongly support that. But unless you consider the new baseline established by the 42% cut to be "normal circumstances", then SWAPA's (and DALPA's) approach cannot mathematically work for us within the time frame most (or maybe even all) of us have left in our careers.
Now if you're objective is to get good "reasonable" increases based on bankruptcy as the new baseline, then DALPA is ace of the bass.