Originally Posted by
Alan Shore
The problem that I have is that you do the exact same thing when you label those with whom you disagree as someone working against the best interests of the pilot group. That too is an attempt to silence them, or at least minimize the validity of their opinions.
We took a 42% pay cut, lost our pension, and had thousands of our jobs outsourced resulting in a full decade of stagnation. And today (10 years later), our rates are still 34% below the buying power of Delta's pilot rates throughout most of the 1980's, 1990's, and early 2000's.
A good argument can be made that those of us who have been here the past 10 years have contributed in the neighborhood of $1 million EACH to Delta' recovery. And all we're asking is that our compensation be restored going forward. That means an increase in W2 of somewhere in the neighborhood of 50%. Keep my $1 million. Just fix my compensation going forward, now that Delta is historically profitable and our industry has been restructured in a way that should result in more consistent profitability in the future.
I think that is an extremely reasonable (and generous) position. To argue against that position means accepting bankruptcy as a reset, establishing a new baseline from which we only expect "reasonable" improvements. I see no way to characterize that other than "working against the best interests of the pilot group."