Anything is possible, but none of what you've suggested as possible was ever said by management. They had plenty of opportunity to add these nuances that you suggest, but they chose not to. I believe they chose not to because it's not what they meant. They meant exactly what they said whcih was: 'The TA will be cost neutral to Delta, and the cost savings will fund other priorities as well...'

Except that's not what they said then, or now.

I think it's because you're trying to hang on to a scenario that today's evidence makes all but impossible. You're hanging on to that scenario by putting words into the mouths of our management team that they never said.

Carl

We can sit here and debate GS vs WS, 1.5x over 75, 80 or 85 all week. On that contract survey I bet 1.5x over 80 was mentioned hundreds if not a thousand times yet wasn't negotiated, probably not even considered. We need to stop selling our flying and looking for other means of income, it's ludicrous! Those FOs with high teens years of service should be puting that fourth stripe on, not trying to figure out how to defeat hourly limitations.

Seriously. Does anyone else feel like we got shafted on scope with regard to Alaska, 70 more CRJ-900s and buying 49% of a foreign carrier months after signing a TA?

Yup, and not a word from the union on the JV non compliance. I am also not a donut eater either.

OK. Our union's process should have been followed. It was not. Instead, our reps were faced with (yet another) fait accompli. Our reps were faced with either accepting a bad deal, or sending an angry and embarrassed negotiating committee back into negotiations with management. If our processes had been followed, this wouldn't have happened.

Yes, but then it takes hundreds of millions right back out of the pilot contract. Funding our pay rate increases by decreases in profit sharing, and large productivity increases just to name a few. Not to mention numerous displacements to lower paying categories. All of this allowed by this contract.

The defenders of this contract as costing the company hundreds of millions of dollars remind me of guys who talk about making a million dollars in the stock market. Then you find out that they also lost a million and a half dollars in the stock market...but they hate talking about that. Tallying your losses along with your gains is the only honest way to judge your performance.

I see nothing of the sort here. I see a lot of increases by our code share/JV partners, but little if any growth at mainline. I only see AE's with plenty of backward movement. This next one will be no different. I only see hundreds of guys taking the early out, and no hiring to replace them. And after all that, I see management describing every category as being overstaffed.

Carl

No, that's not what they said. Even as our negotiating committee was vehemently trying to defend the TA as adding hundreds of millions of dollars in cost to Delta, management refused to back up those allegations. Management only continued to tell anyone who would listen that the TA would be cost neutral to Delta. In fact, they said that the cost savings would allow them to fund other priorities.

Except that's not what management said. I know it's what you said, and I know it's what the MEC administration was saying, but since you're not management, it's just your opinion.

Carl

Oooh good point.

Dang it Ferd, I didn't get to read the rant before you deleted it.

You should know I'm thick-skinned...I'm married. :D

Carl

Carl,

At the risk of using too many big words for you I will restate my points. Our entire contract is not cost neutral to Delta. It is cost positive to Delta. Our labor produces revenues that dwarf the cost of our contract. Delta charges their customers much more money than it costs Delta to pay us including benefits.

So what you are trying to do is play word games. If our contract changes were Cost Neutral to Delta then it is even more of a win since in general pilot costs are 1 in 18 of all revenue. What you and your friends are trying to do is confuse people into thinking that this was cost neutral for Delta PILOTS. It was not cost neutral to Delta pilots, in fact it was a giant pay and benefit increase for Delta pilots.

If senior management describes a business plan that covers the cost of pilot labor, gate agent labor, aircraft ownership costs, fuel, swizzle sticks, and on and on, then that should be about as Earth shattering as the fact that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow. Of course they cover their costs. How would they stay in business if they didn't?

The union's job is to carve out as much of that revenue as is possible for pilots. They should not care what the sources of that revenue are and they should understand that in all cases, our pay and benefits will be dwarfed by total revenue, they have to be or the company will go out of business.

So you are trying to confuse pilots into thinking that it is cost neutral from a pilot perspective and that is wrong. Why some reps try to play that same game, including some incoming reps is beyond me. However, the Delta pilots were not confused, they understand that pay and benefits are going up by about 25-30% all in and productivity is increasing by about 1-2%. Everyone knows that 25-30% is more than 1-2%. That is the critical factor, that is what pays the bills, that is what improves the lives of pilots. That is why these 5 reps could not articulate a single plan that made any sense that would have improved upon these results. Hoping that management will just come back for more is not a plan that is self delusion.

All the rest of this is just obfuscation where you are trying to confuse people into thinking that there is something sinister with the fact that Delta has to produce much more revenue that even our improved TA costs them. Delta managers describe that most basic fact and you treat it like it is some magic revelation.

Our pay hit the amendable date 12.85% above our previous rate, a record achievement. To be cost neutral to Delta pilots we would have to reduce our headcount by 1,400 pilots. Given 200 early outs, that means I must have missed the 1,200 furlough notices that were handed out. That would be cost neutral.

You are correct sir.

Correct again. They simply have to find their voice and use their power, or their marginalization will only get worse.

Carl

Leine,

No offense but do you ever stop and pay attention to your environment, question what others say when it doesnt balance with what is observed or what has taken place in the past? The facts all point in one direction.

Lastly, I'd rather be pulling gear for Carl, trying to determine where I want that first upgrade and calculating how ill invest that profit sharing check instead of being one of the many FOs playing the continuius mind f--- game that involves 2 pages of MD preferneces, none of which which you'll hold past the following AE or the one after that. You need to hear this partner, but DALPA either got played or someone was handing someone a whole lot of something under the table; if I was DPA I'd spend some of that $100k sniffing with a world class PI.