Wow. Very well said.

Carl

Just to add to this here...We are not just talking about the 5% decrease in profit sharing for the pilot group. The me-to clauses work both ways, and the TA was used as a vehicle to reduce profit sharing for ALL employee groups under the guise of this contract.

If I had to read the tea leaves here, I anticipate our management team has positioned out company extremely well, but does anyone else take offense with the issue of profit sharing being reduced just as our company is starting to become substantially profitable?

I can respect the opinion of anyone who voted yes, if they can admit that the TA in itself is at the very least cost neutral to the company. The people who are overally ecstatic about this TA, while echoing all the talking points from the company, are insufferable at times.

On that note, good to see you back Carl.

No, maybe that is basically what YOU hope for with every pay increase. :)
I hope for pilots not financing their pay increases, but the companies basically and actually paying for them. Up to the point of actual pay raise, not increases spread over 15-20 years to sort of capture what pilots gave to the companies.
Is that fair or should I be ashamed of myself? :D



Carl said there was not extra cost, you say there is "substantial". For someone who didn't study political science or philosophy it is pure torture.
It would be nice to see any available numbers on the subject.
Thx

How did DALPA get played? We received raises, improved sick policy, improved work rules, and better vacation and training pay. We also reduced the allowable amount of AS Codeshare & total RJs. The mainline fleet is scheduled to grow by 70+ airplanes over the next several years. And I left the 320 for the 7ER and have stayed put for multiple AEs.

Why would you do that? I've already refuted them. Are you the kind of guy that just keeps saying the same thing louder to people who don't agree with you?

Yes it is. Our management team specifically said just that.

Management disagrees with you. And since they keep the books, I believe them.

This straw man point has nothing to do with management's characterization of our contract as being cost neutral to Delta. This is what I mean when I tell you that you waste people's time with a swarm of words hoping to convince people that you're some sort of subject matter expert.

Shakespeare said: "Brevity is the soul of wit". You should work on it.

Carl

I see. I post management's quotes, while you state your opinions...and I'm the one playing word games. Love it.

My goodness, you just don't listen. I've never said that. Management has never said that. I've only said what management has said, which is: our contract is cost neutral to Delta Air Lines. That means all of our gains (paid for by the airline), were offset (funded) by backward steps in other areas.

Of course, but that's not what management was/or is talking about. Our contract covered its own cost increases. Not any of the other things you mentioned, just the contract itself.

Carl

From Delta's recent 8K:

"Consolidated unit cost (CASM 3 ), excluding fuel expense, profit sharing and special items, was 5.7 percent higher in the December 2012 quarter on a year-over-year basis, driven by the impact of capacity reductions, wage increases, and operational and service investments. GAAP consolidated CASM increased 9 percent."

The most recent contract may have been neutral to Delta. Cutting maintenance costs and salary at regional carriers, and stacking that value up on top of the mainline contract could be considered neutral from a CEO perspective. In other words, subtracting a $billion from them, and adding a $billion for us is neutral. I'll take that any day.

In the meantime, each bid I'm within a hair of being displaced off the 320.

I know the planes are coming, but with the first bid for the 717's coming up, we're looking at over 400 displacements.

Our union's job is to follow its own processes. Our MEC administration didn't do that.

No, that's what you're trying to do. Our contract is cost neutral from management's perspective. That's why management specifically said that in numerous publications.

It's beyond you alfa because (and I'm sorry to be so blunt), you're a poor listener. You're like a transceiver stuck in transmit mode. Our reps weren't playing a game. Those 5 reps were questioning why our negotiating committee would sign off on a TA (without ever consulting the reps) that didn't cost the airline one additional penny (as stated publicly by management) before Section 6 negotiations even began. Those were excellent questions, not games being played.

Carl

Well, if the cost if getting your respect is to agree that this contract is cost neutral or better to the company, then the price of admission is too steep. And the membership is liable to consist of liars and the mathematically challenged.

There is no way the company spends less per pilot under this deal, or that individuals are worse off as a result if the TA. There were some concessions made to staffing, some gains made in workrules, and obvious gains in compensation.

The only valid question is whether we got enough in this early TA.

The cheerleaders say we got everything, the DPA guys say we got nothing. Neither is true.

I voted for it based partly on the TVM argument, and mostly because of the up-gauging. I gladly banked the 12+% so far, and have been looking forward to advancement that hasn't materialized yet, and the results whispers about large follow-on pieces that would give us one or two great new opportunities.

I'm beginning to wonder if we were played in terms of a(one or more) follow-on transaction(s), but it's hard to say just yet. That's the problem with working under NDA's (a practice I'm increasingly skeptical of). I'll judge advancement by the next two AE's as we get closer to 717 deliveries (so far, I'm disappointed), and I'll judge our ability to negotiate additional improvements on getting a very respectful amount of LHR flying from VA. Based on what I expect to happen on the existing JV %, I'm skeptical about our ability to negotiate enforceable deals, as well as our willingness to enforce negotiated deals.

Can you respect that opinion, or do I have to buy into this theory of neutral-minus first?