disregard.......

 

I still disagree for the most part. First of all, Leo had us on a direct course for BK practically the moment he arrived. His appointment of MB just confirmed that. His buy back was for no other reason than to pump up the stock price on a temporary basis in order to fill his parachute. As far as HE was concerned, it paid off nicely. There is a HUGE difference between him and Mr Anderson. Investment grade is the goal. When that happens, money becomes available at better interest rates which is really good for DAL. If you don't believe that, compare Alaska's balance sheets with Delta's. The biggest difference is interest payments. While it is true that paying out money to shareholders reduces cash to plow back into the enterprise, it is a calculated risk. At the LCP meeting, Mr Anderson talked about the amount of capital needed to sustain operations, and this doesn't affect that number. Like I said, I believe that institutional investors will start investing in DAL and that is a good thing that will eventually work it's way to us. (and please spare me the inevitable thuggery and chest beating) Yes we are labor, but IMO that is not what this discussion is about. I am talking about the direction of DAL the corporation. Carl chooses to live in the world of a ****ed off member of labor, and that is fine, but I choose to move on. I am excited about where this company is going.

 

1) Money is always left on the table. We work under the RLA. Even in C2K we left money on the table.

2) My comments on Monday Morning Quarter backing was directed to the tirades on here. I am sure DALPA looks at every event tactically.

3) DALPA looked at the opportunity and weighed the Pro and the Cons. It was far from a perfect deal but the pilots overwhelmingly approved it for a short term deal.

4) We are in a period of consolidation and liberalization. Those survey results are still valid, esp if you think they were not met.

How about you volunteer some time and work towards the ends that you desire. If DALPA is so backwards, it needs more people willing to fight, people like you. Give it a try.

 

None, probably. But I'm at the 12 year point and would rather be an FO at DAL then a CA on a narrow body at Jet Blue. I'm not a Kool aide drinker but I am really excited about where DAL is headed. After 20 years in the left seat in the USAF, I don't need that right now to be a happy camper.

Some day, hopefully.

 

Me too Buzz.

 

I got distracted a couple of days ago, but thanks for the response with regard to pay banding. I've only been in the 121 game for a couple of years and have tons to learn (which is a big part of why I'm always hanging around this thread), and have not considered the pros and cons of different pay scenarios.

Don't blame you there, and I'll bet there are more than a few JetBlue Captains with apps in right now. That's why I shake my head at some of the regional FOs that seem to think the turbine PIC no longer matters - it's going to be a loooooong time before Delta clears the pool of people with thousands of hours of time spent in the left seat of a kerosene burner. Most pilots at an LCC under the age of 45, regardless of seat, is at least thinking about taking the leap.

 

While I tend to agree with this, just to play devil's advocate (I've heard this arguement and wasn't 100% sure how to refute it):

Getting to "investment grade" status (whatever that means, let's assume we are somewhat successful in doing that because of this buyback/dividend, etc) will get us better financing terms and other deals and save us as much or more than we "spend" on it. It will also enable DL to buy all or part of another airline(s) much cheaper relatively speaking. Basically, what T said above. I'm not discounting all of it, but I am highly skeptical that we will get 1B+ hopefull return from the guaranteed 1B outlay.

Again, I can't really wrap my head around that, because can we ever really save more in better financing rates because of this than we would simply paying down that much more debt in the first place? Are we leaving revenue on the table with our inferior/inadequate widebody fleet that we could bolster with this money instead, generating revenue?

From where I see it, best case this is a per merger paper shuffle if it plays out exactly as scripted. Worst case we will be down a billion bucks permanantly from where we could have been if we didn't do this. Woudn't an extra billion in reduced debt (6 instead of 7B?) and/or a more competitive widebody fleet and/or a superior product do more to make us "investment grade" than a scheme to lump in individual investors with pre programmed sector ETF's linked to other airlines, oil, the DOW, etc and throw money at all of them?

Also, as improved as our product has gotten, we need to do more work than we are doing or even have imminent plans for. I can see us succeeding in spite of this plan, but not because of it in any real way. What am I missing?

10B was supposed to be some magic debt number that triggered epic deals on financing and whatnot. OK, we are headed there, and supposedly down to 7. So lower is better, isn't 6B better than 7B?

Then it gets into the insane realm of LBO schenanagans, which I really don't even see how that junk is even legal. In any case, does buying back shares reduce our exposure to hostile takeovers and all that boiler room tomfoolery?

 

While the basis of your arguments sound good and should make sense....they don't with this union/pilot group.

After the merger the swirling sentiment among many of the guys at the time....work hard to run things efficiently and provide great customer service...it will pay off in the restoration contract of C2012 with the company being profitable. In my opinion the pilot group got bamboozled with a combined beat down of misleading info of tag team DALPA/Management. The proof is in the pudding as they say.

All the exciting news/rumors in the world (ie hiring soon, taking American jets and growing our South American operation with lots more hiring, growing our flying by purchasing a stake in Virgin Atlantic and GOL and GRUPO AEROMÉXICO with likely more to come... and now the epically exciting "We are aiming for investment grade status by giving money back to investors"..) has done nothing for Joe Delta Pilot. Prepare for the new message in C2015....sorry guys the money's already been spent....but atta boy for working so hard....we REALLY do appreciate all you do.

How much longer can the goodwill last and guys still lap up the crazy feel good statements about why everything above is so fantastic with no real payout? Just seems like some guys have either been 1. Sniffing crazy glue or 2. Have their own personal and/or union agenda, which is removed from the plight of the average line pilot at Delta Air Lines.

 

[QUOTE=Herkflyr;1407489]This is such a general statement that it is hard to oppose. How do you define "completely"? Are you saying that if you personally (and you--and I--are just one of thousands) did not get every little thing that you did wanted, that therefore your union leadership is wanting? If so, then you will be sorely disappointed regardless of the name of your bargaining agency.

Sometimes I am reminded of pilot A who will say, full of conviction, "If concessions are ever needed, just give up pay. Once given up, you can't ever get back work rules, and the IRS still hasn't figured out how to tax a day off."

Then pilot B will immediately chime in and reply "BS! Work rules don't pay the mortage. Work rules don't buy the groceries. Work rules don't get my kid into the better schools, etc. Only pay will. If you have to give something up, give up work rules."

I have heard exact point/counter-point conversations just like this. What is a union to do with a finite pie, but infinite expectations of the membership?[/QUOTE]


Response to the first bolded part: I'm not interested in semantic word games. I'm not "the great communicator." The question I would ask you is, based upon your (and my) limited grasp of what our fellow pilots put in their surveys, were they met in a way that cost the company more money (money for pilots)? My honest answer is: Not appreciably.

Response to the second bolded: In my perspective, the pie slice we recieved cost about what the previous pie slice cost, adjusted for inflation. The ingredients were just shuffled around...Despite what DALPA said it cost them...I'm not seeing it...Are you?

In your heart, and in all honesty, can you say that with this contract, we have benchmarked bankruptcy wages/benefits as the new normal? I believe we have...Huge DALPA strategic error going forward, IMO.

With the benefit of hind sight, do you believe we left money on the table? Lots of it? I do.

I can live with the contract that 68% voted for, but trying to blow sunshine is BS. We agreed to extend a concessionary contract (with some concessions added/ and some removed) for the addition of a narrowbody, which I believe was coming anyway. In the process, we have accepted bankruptcy wages as normal.

Someone asked in a later post if someone thought DALPA lied to them...I do. On this board, someone posted AF/KLM's contract synopsis after doing a google search...DALPA said they couldn't post those numbers for comparison because they were confidential... Where I come from, that's called lying. And I get to pay them 1.9% of my pay for that kind of effort on my behalf...