Originally Posted by
Bucking Bar
I don't get the second part. Both management and ALPA promoted and fought for a stand alone Delta. The numbers certainly supported this conclusion.
I think that you're overstating the numbers, plus it's my perspective that you misread the intent of the Creditor's Committee when they selected the Delta Board. We had just beaten back the USAirways hostile takeover (more "potential" money, but more risk for the creditors that we created/exploited), but ALPA's statements during that takeover were that we supported rational consolidation. The Airways takeover wasn't rational yet it still produced a split committee vote. The committee picked a Board that was pro-consolidation. Anderson was on that Board. You know the history after that.
We've seen this act before. While not a perfect comparison, it's the US Railroad industry in the 60's and 70's. We're down to 4 major railroads and a whole bunch of shortlines now. Those that didn't consolidate rationally have been carved up, sold off, bankrupted or abandoned. As labor we get to choose which path we want to influence all the other stakeholders to take. Do we want to be the Pennsylvania (former largest railroad), Penn Central, Conrail, or Norfolk Southern and CSX?
Personally I'd like to be working for a profitable survivor.
Originally Posted by
Bucking Bar
Personally, this merger will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $150,000 to $200,000 (less contractual gains and stock award) until the potential to earn it back in the last ten years. You state that model is fatally flawed by the fact that the 07 hires would not even have jobs without the merger. Who knows? The numbers we can prove are the NWA fleet utilization, pre and post merger load factors and aircraft retirements. In contrast, I don't know how we prove the merger kept people in jobs OTHER than the effectiveness of D-ALPA's negotiations to ensure we kept our jobs.
As you note, we continue to disagree on the "cost" versus "benefit" of this merger. Take a look at those numbers you posted earlier for either standalone company, subtract out the Amex cash and see where either airline would have been. You thought debt/equity was ugly before...debt service would have been a challenge for either airline. While you can state these next comments are hypothetical, I believe that the numbers support my case. Neither one would have been positioned independently to do the LGA transaction. Neither one would have independently been able to go after JAL against TPG/AMR. Neither one could have avoided some level of furlough (look at the Atlantic and Pacific losses for a guide). You're right, I can't PROVE something would or would not have happened. But you can draw a logical conclusion from the behavior of the rest of the industry and our comparative financials. Every legacy carrier except merged DAL furloughed. Because of this I believe (and granted cannot prove) that the merger benefited all pilots tremendously.
Originally Posted by
Bucking Bar
We will see just how right, or wrong, my prognostications are. I'm still thinking September furlough notices with December reflectivity. That's how we are running the household finances and if I'm wrong, 2011 sure is time to buy a new car
I'll take you and Carl to lunch in it if you two promise to behave in the back seat.
Two points.
1. September furloughs are still possible. It all depends on what's happening around us. If there is a Middle East war, interruption of the oil supply, another large scale terror attack, or general economic meltdown, it's very possible. All the analysts are seeing it differently right now. Of course they didn't see Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in '90, 9-11, or any other external event that had substantial impact on our career. Personally, I see improving conditions and a brighter future in the near term for our airline.
We work in the airline industry. Furloughs are always possible, no matter what your seniority number. How's number one at EAL, BNF, MEH, or 170+ other airlines since deregulation doing?
2. 2011 won't be the time to spend. It'll be the time to continue to save, because when our interests are no longer aligned with management there could be conflict. It will require creative labor and management leadership to maintain that alignment. Many believe as the Battleship captains did prior to World War II, that the big guns are supreme and are arguing for a tactical change. They're looking to post a set of demands just because "we're entitled", then sail up and down the coast in smart formation in an intimidating fashion. They forget that their guns only have a range of 26 miles, leaving most targets outside of their scope, and while they may look impressive, they're not very relevant. They're no longer Captains of the true Capital ships. The good news is that all those that think that way are wearing the correct uniform to look like nautical royalty...
If we find that creative management and labor leadership, we will avoid unnecessary conflict and make a bigger pie for us all to feast from. If we don't, well, there's history to guide us on how short term our "success" might be.