Originally Posted by
poopplop
Feel free to enlighten us with the actual numbers then... I've given you a recent documented example and a common sense hypothetical. Also, you know how much Delta protects their brand. It is worth something to them, even if it is not for you. If you are so sure of the effects being minuscule, feel free to post them. Otherwise, you are in no position to talk in such a way.
I don't understand the purpose of your second paragraph. I was alluding that retirees may not actually be affected too much by this change, because the commuter clause already in place would have them bumped first anyway if it came down to it. If you think I am out to hurt retirees, you are mistaken. I have no power to change management's policy whatsoever. I am only discussing the pros and cons.
Let's get something straight - you are the one making some grandiose claims about protecting the brand and increasing our profit sharing, so the burden of proof is on you. And one UAL event to prove your point? You got me there. I'll just defer to your wisdom and wait for the big bump in my profit sharing check next year thanks to your new non-rev bennies. Because that's what this is really about, you are watering at the mouth over the increase in leisure travel non-rev status, not the improvement to the DL brand or financial performance. You my friend, are not fooling anyone. But do carry on with your words of wisdom about improving my profit sharing and DL brand integrity with your nov-rev improvement.