Yep...it's like when you had your eye on a vette, but you have to buy a mini-van because your wife is about to have another kid that you let yourself get talked into...

And then Delta will spend $750,000 on consumer experts, product surveys, and marketing research and they will come up with the perfect name for this regional.

And they will name it "Compass"

He was trying to demean my ability to think logically. I mentioned that when I worked at the Pentagon as a programmer (green eyeshade kind of guy), we always accounted for inflation. He shot back, 'well I have a degree in economics and an MBA!'. OK, so why aren't we accounting for inflation & actual buying power?

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

For example, $100 in 2009 equals $107.25 in 2012. So a 3-year, 19.7% deal is more likely a 12.5% raise total in the end, adjusting for inflation.

As someone who has gotten tired of posting, but who has still been paying a lot of attention to this stuff, I've got to say that this letter by Steve most closely expresses my fears of what's in this TA. I've met him a few times, which doesn't mean he's more or less credible than the more positive posters on the TA, but there is something to be said about someone who points out what is good, bad, and ugly and not just all the good with it.

I've gotten over the pay issue. It's slow to get where I want it, but whatever. I've always said scope was more important than pay. Admittedly, I never mentioned work rules. Probably, because I never thought we would give any up.

I've also gotten over some of the more onerous work-rule changes. If I ever make it to a position where I consistently fly long trips and get sick more than once in a year, I'll get a doctors note, and fight about it later. No problemo.

What I haven't gotten over is scope and the pilot productivity increases.

Any additional 70+ seaters to be flown by someone else is a LOT to me. The bottom line to me is that we are going in the wrong direction with those. I don't remember how the survey was worded, but I wish it had made the distinction between 50 seaters and 70+ seaters. When I'm flying, the guys/gals I fly with never look at 50 seaters and say, "there goes my left seat job." But, when a 70 seater goes by, at some point during the trip, undoubtedly they will say something to that effect. Does the NC and MEC know that there is a distinction between the two made in our pilot group? Unfortunately, I believe we have been compensated for in the opposite direction that what we wanted: less 70+ seaters, 50 seaters -- more if you want them, we hate 'em and know the passengers do, too.

Like I said, we are going in the wrong direction with 70 seaters, and what's disheartening is that there is no acknowledgment by the MEC or the company that we want the amount of 70 seaters to decrease.

Next is the ALV +15 issue for reserves and ALV 84 for lineholders. I know on its face, these are huge issues that will cost pilot jobs. I know Slow has posted and tried to explain the formula that is supposed to protect against a loss of pilots, but it makes little sense. Why does the company want increased productivity from us and why did we give it up, only to be "protected" with some formula? Maybe someone can explain it to me in simplistic terms?

Both of these are big issues for me. It doesn't make sense for me to vote in a TA under the pretense of the time value of money, if that TA causes me to be displaced to a lower paying position for less money.

Assuming Captain Mayer was totally asleep for the entire week of presentations, and no one took notes for him, is the reason he wrote some of the stuff he wrote above, what part did he miss?

Thanks in advance.

The funny thing....there are ALPA guys here saying "The survey said pilots wanted to work more hours for more pay". Doesn't seem to jive with the actual survey. Who knows though because it is being kept secret from the membership.

ha. i used that analogy once of us giving an inch and management taking a mile.

Rhino Driver astutely pointed out that we'll agree to it, then the company will go 6,080 feet and we'll scream bloddy murder because they didnt stop at 5,280.

ALPA will look at it and conclude we can't stop it because our language never specified what a mile was.

:D

Love when people toss the education card.

The wealthiest man I ever worked for, the one with a $25M plane, was self-made and worth a half a billion- on a six grade education. Its how you apply yourself, not whether you're good at rote memorization and multiple choice tests. And frankly "did you hear what ALPA said" is far from applying yourself.

btw good post newk

Uummm...they still own one. And it's shrinking faster than George Costanza's...well, you get the imagery!

Haha that is so sad and funny. It makes me mad it's true though!:mad:

Anybody notice that DAL's market cap surpassed $10B?