The appeal of retaining C2012 is gathering steam. Gloopy's idea of adding an amount less than Delta has pegged in their C2015 costing (a flat $1B) ought to make C2012 appear downright magical in comparison.

Is anybody better than me at calculating out the $1B in straight pay? My public school math comes up with just shy of a $31 per hour rate increase for a "theoretical average minimally achieving pilot," assuming a lot of things that I'm not sure about, but seem somewhat rational: a billion dollars divided by 12k pilots divided by three years divided by 900 (75 paid hours per month). Off the top of my head, that's pretty close to what a 7ER F/O would see if the TA is implemented, at the 2018 end state.

So a $30-ish hourly pay increase for the mystical average pilot, on DOS for three years, or a lesser intitial amount ramped up to a higher amount by 2018, simply by deploying $1B to pay rates. Leaving every other aspect of the PWA alone. Before poking holes in my formula, please accept that it's ballpark and purely attaching a rough number to what Gloopy originally put forth. And recall, I started this post with a request for more precise calculations, which I welcome.

The point is, C2012 looks pretty sweet next to this pig of a TA. Add costing that Delta purports to accept ($100M less actually) to C2012, and it's all good. Add a side order of current profit sharing, and life goes on. What's the problem? Of course TA supporters will say that's a simplistic theory applied to a complex web of interwoven issues. But really, think about it. Take the status quo, add some cash that is clearly in the business plan, and move on with the stellar performance Delta has been achieving. Who gets hurt? Instead, we are presented with enormous give-backs to attain a meager pay raise. It's unlikely any current Delta pilot will ever experience a more favorable atmosphere in which to build a solid contract. Keeping asking yourself, and your colleagues,
"why are we asked to surrender established ground in prosperous times?" There is no reasonable answer. The appropriate response is "NO!"