I'd rather have both, and that's why I voted in favor.

Continues to amaze me that guys get upset or are shocked by the information and the way it is presented in earning calls and other types of public reports. They use this communication to bolster their fight against the atrocities committed against pilots in our last agreement. Given the audience they are courting, what do you think the theme and tone is going to be? Would you really want this type of investor and public communication to be pro-employee? or pro-company economics?

If you are talking about displacements from the domestic 767, those displacements have been going on for some time and were coming regardless of the contract.

We were also overstaffed, that's why the company wanted an early retirement package.

The 717 will provide upgrade opportunities for some and a fall back for others. The increase in pay rates will help reduce the sting of displacements to lower paying equipment.

Without the 717s arriving as fast as they will be, this upcoming AE probably would be very ugly.

The 737-900s start coming quickly too. Which begs the question, how many 757s, 320s, and 767s are being retired and how soon? Nothing in the crew resources updates has indicated that we are removing any of those from the fleet as of yet, although there are many parked in the desert. Other than the 717s coming on line, this has the potential to swing the staffing one way or the other by a large amount. I have to think that with the AA merger happening, growth either through another merger or internally makes more sense in an industry that favors the top two players. So either we buy Alaska, Hawaiian, or we start growing and flying their routes.

As I and many others stated before the TA vote, the TA was cost neutral to Delta. We didn't make that up, we were simply posting Richard and Ed's quotes to various financial media. So it's not a question of making sense to you or not, it's simply quoting our executive leadership.

Now, why was/is this an important question? It's important because people like alfaromeo and others within the MEC administration vehemently denied any characterization of the TA as cost neutral to Delta...despite executive leadership stating the exact opposite. The MEC administration felt they had to try to kill the cost neutral description or risk being thought of as management stooges by the membership. It was this vehement attack against the cost neutral description that is the concern. Is that what an MEC should be doing during the membership decision phase of a TA vote? Shouldn't an MEC just put out the TA and let us decide? And shouldn't an MEC let the words of our executive leadership speak for themselves?

Carl

http://www.cryosites.com/shared/img/...oco_4n50k.jpeg

I'm not sure. But I do think that all similar questions should be accompanied by this picture.

Carl

Yup, got an entire generation of us through puberty:D She was the complete package. Beautiful, a classic lady, never got rattled, could kick your a$$ and carried a gun.

Ok, I'll be back in a few minutes......gotta take care of 'something':eek:

Your right of course. But, I also remember going on strike for a pay cut (what ever we called ALV.....how soon the mind forgets bad stuff). At least we got to vote on that one too.....oh wait.:rolleyes:

Pro truth or they'll be in a world of hurt.

but we already knew that there were productivity gains in this contract, EB isn't saying something from out of left field. He's just saying what we cheated, we paid for our own pay increases via fewer pilots, larger RJs and in another place they mentioned profit sharing cuts. I'll look up that quote when I get back to the computer.

FTB,

Did you have some questions about The Big Bang Theory sitcom? I think I missed them. I couldn't get past this........ :D


http://www.cryosites.com/shared/img/...oco_4n50k.jpeg