Originally Posted by Sink r8

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.