Had they not been in such an irrational rush to bend over for the company and its "fleeting opportunities," ALPA would have had the chance to more fully identify and negotiate to end abominations such as that.

Or did the survey demand 3-day trips worth 10:30?

Baja my last year on the 7ER was reserve and al I flew were the 10hr OGG and GUA... I hated them but then just got used to them! Especially all the guns in GUA on the streets and shady characters running around! But the food at that tree house place was good and it was cheap!!! Just wear running shoes and zig zag all the way back to the hotel!!!

Fiig:D

"I hated them but then got used to them" and then actually grew to enjoy them! Hey, I got Montezuma's revenge, and I only had to spend a few bucks! I hated sitting on the sh!tter all day, but I did get to read a bunch of Nancy Drew novels! So it was great!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we will never, ever vote down a TA or realize our full earnings potential.

.............

Actually, if you paid attention at all, this was identified and that is where the ADG came from. According to the reps that were there, the goal was for more (especially the LAX REPS), but unlike in fantasy worlds, there was a cost associated with ADG and i imagine it had to be balanced with other priorities.. Either way, it was an improvement and it has helped reserves as well as line holders.

Now.. Please explain how getting paid 12.5 percent more for the same trip that was allowed by the previous contract, negates the time value of money?

It's one heck of a fantasy world at ALPA, where the company makes--and is forecast to improve upon--record profits; yet ALPA buys into the manufactured panic, and pushes a rushed concessionary contract.

It's better than fantasy for the company. It's beyond their wildest dreams.

p.s. does your 12.5% figure include the huge profit sharing chunk we gave up? Of course not.

Profit sharing is nice. But I prefer guaranteed money in my pocket. Anyone who is at Delta now has been around long enough to know that record profits can swing to record loses very quckly.

1. It was clearly not a concessionary contract. You lose credibility when you say that. Argue with facts and you'll get further

2. Yes, the 12.5% does overcome the profit sharing. The profit sharing was monetized and accounts for about 2% of the entire 19.7ish % increase in compensation (notice I didn't say raise as some will quickly point out its a pay restoration for those that were here for the cuts, of which I am not one). This year is going to be close to "worst case" if you want to call it that, in that the company is going to be near $2B in profits. At 2.5B the company gains the max advantage of the monetization of profit sharing. The flip side, which will surely come someday is that even if delta doesn't make a penny, we still keep the part we monetized.

As an aside, there was talk of not having the 4 hour carve out for ADG. This likely would have resulted in the 73N categories closing in LAX, as the trips would have been credit heavy and Carmen would have seen fit to build the rotations from other bases. Better to have the carve out and maintain the LAX basing for our pilots? Or "show some spine" and end up with a bunch of displaced/commuting pilots?

Actually, the 12.5% does include the "huge profit sharing chunk" we gave up.

So what's the problem????:):eek:

Denny

To answer your last question, my opinion only, I'd say "show some spine". We lost trips in my base that have been here for decades due to ADC. I'm not sad to see them go. For the overall pilot group, it means that we're only gaining more productive trips. The time goes someplace else, and is replaced by more productive time. I WANT the company to pay for me being at work, whether I'm flying a plane or not. What I don't want is for a category to remain open and viable "only if the pilots get paid less". This is fundamental, like scope. Anything else is selling ourselves and our services short. Does Express ring a bell?