Have you looked at my 'back of the napkin' analysis? Please feel free to point out the errors in order to make it accurate.

The only difference is the baseline that you use to measure from. Elvis is accounting for each year's raise on a dollar basis. You're accounting for each year's raise and adding it cummulatively from the basis of date of signing. Your method double and triple counts the raises IMO. Elvis' method is what most folks use to cost account a contract.

But it misses the point IMO. ANY cost increases to Delta from the TA are FULLY FUNDED by concessions in other parts of the contract. That's why sleepy ED, RA and the beaver are all on the record stating that this TA is COST NEUTRAL to Delta.

Carl

Pilot contract costs last year were about $2 billion, not including profit sharing, employer paid taxes and DB pension funding.

So my baseline was off by 1/3... $722M x 1.33 = $960M over 3 1/2 years, not counting the exceptions you stated...so a $1B contract plus.

Carl, unless I"m mistaken Carl each years raise is compounded;4, 8.5,3,3. What isn't compounded is the 2% reduction in profit sharing. I think your fully funded by concessions is just not true. What Elvis and I disagree on is the amount of additional cost to DL,again, additional cost to DL.Get it?

Who cares? This DPA talking point is almost as good as the "his vs. her" gender-gate talking point in their recent news letter. Yes, ALPA hates all female pilots, and spent precious negotiating capital sliding this little slam in under our nose. Fortunately the DPA is here to save us from the politically incorrect! :rolleyes:

I could care less if this TA SAVES the company money. It can be cost neutral to them all they want. As long as they are taking $ from a bucket that is not currently allocated to pilots then it isn't cost neutral to us. That's all I care about.

If they sent us a contract that said "we've recently figured out how to run jet engines off of sunshine, and we're willing to pass along 50% of the savings to you pilots in your next contract," they would turn around and tell the media that the contract is a net positive for them. Funny math works for anyone.


1. $ saved on RJ maintenance, fuel burn, etc is being spent on a new pilot contract.

2. The two sides of that equation roughly equal each other - hence their ability to call this cost neutral.

3. This is why I think we will not see a quick sweetening of the pot with a NO vote. Once our side of this equation tips to the positive, the proposition is no longer appealing to mgmt and they will pursue another avenue. See ya in a few months to meet about meeting sometime . . . .

Standing by for a shelling.

Your argument is not with me finis, it's with RA, ED and Austin Powers. They're all on the record and in writing. Are they lying?

Carl

Buenas Noches all...gotta fly mañana.

Buen viaje

Uh, nobody's talking about DPA except you. Which by the way, is a new DALPA talking point. Anytime somebody points out something you don't like, refer to it as a DPA talking point. It's tired already.

That's not what I said. I said: "Every cost increase in this TA is FULL FUNDED by CONCESSIONS in this TA." Again, your argument is with RA, ED and smiley...not with me. Why don't you call them and tell them they're lying about our TA.

No shellling, just want you to be clear where I'm hearing this.

Carl