Originally Posted by
gzsg
IMO he crushed us on C2012 and called it self funded the very next day. I know some have big issues with his statement, but let's face it Sink Mr. Campbell could not lie just to please Wall Street or he would have gone to jail. He said it because it was true.
Just consider the lack of respect for the Delta pilots in making that statement before the line pilots even saw the details and voted.
Do you expect the same this time? I do. I believe the second we have a TA on C2015 Mr. Campbell will say it is cost neutral given our concessions on training (pay banding/longer freezes), sick leave and profit sharing. And probably some exciting surprises we don't know about.
Sink why are we going to make concessions? By management's own tally we will make $6.5 billion in 2015 and billions more in 2016 and beyond.
I can tell you right now we will not hit the 2004 Delta pilot hourly rates date of signing. Why not? Why is it that our own Union thinks it is ok to accept less than hourly rates that are over a decade old? Forget about inflation. The insiders say there is no such thing.
We are making the same mistakes. We are silent and letting management lead us down their path.
Our execs paid the latest buy back off a year early again. In May they will announce more and probably a higher dividend. That is awesome. But what about us? Why is DALPA laying there silent and dead?
Is it ok with you that we still need 20% to hit decade old pay rates and the shareholders get rewarded with billions again and again and again?
Why won't the union take the polite and professional position that our pay needs to be snapped up before the next round of buy backs in May?
Ok. Much of that actually makes sense, except for two things:
1) For all the trades being made, C21012 was most definitely not cost neutral on an individual basis. It wasn't for me, and it wasn't for you. I'm sure it's a stretch to say it's cost-neutral in the aggregate, but there are a lot of creative ways to make the claim. One of those is that we'll be replacing a lot of top-end retirees, with a lot of newhires.
2) You're still not explaining why Smith would be better.
As far as the balance between shareholders and employees, I think you make good points. We can't say on one hand that we're breaking from the pack and transforming Delta into a different sort of company, one that commands a premium, while at the same time focusing on American or United's successes and failures. This enterprise is generating extraordinary margins, higher than RA's highest objectives of just a few years ago, and we crushed our stated debt repayment schedule as well. There needs to be a solution that allows us to benefit handsomely, just as the shareholders and executives benefit greatly.