Has anyone watched the series House of Lies"? This is a page out of the House of Lies consulting handbook. It has no benefit to the corporation. It only benefits the consultants and shareholders with maturing stock options. Stock buybacks are ripoffs. Notice they didn't buy anything back when it was trading for $4.00 a share. Stock buybacks only serve to temporarily artificially inflate the stock price. In many cases, stock buybacks hurt the company.

Assuming "we" is NWA ALPA, I don't know when you voted to freeze it, but the freeze didn't happen until after you entered bankruptcy.

BTW, DAL ALPA voted to soft freeze ours too, and the combination of paycut and soft freeze had the same effect as a hard freeze. It was frozen 9 months BEFORE we entered bankruptcy.....but still terminated.:(

Stock buy backs are a waste of corporate funds.

A mil friend of mine who went through this in 2010 said it resulted in holding him up for at least two or three classes. Upon review he was one of the lucky ones who got the go ahead; the others (~50%?) did not fair as well. One of the unlucky ones had a recommendation letter from his dad (a current captain with the company).:eek: Don't test defensively (i.e. IMO, applicants should be honest on those MMPI tests and not try to look like a saint. Probably a lot more to it than that, though).

Timbo either quit or didnt move up. in fact if the guy was junior then he went backwards.

bastards.

The problem with the MMPI and DAL hiring is that the MMPI was designed to be a test that gave the taker career/job options for which he was most suited - in the future.

NOT to differentiate between people who have been doing the job already for a decade or more.

IMO, DAL should design a psych test that tests for the personality traits they want in the pilots they are interviewing.

Its a conspiracy. Do you work for ALPA or management ... you frikkin shill.









(forgot the smiley for those in doubt)

I think this is probably a. "Which came first: the chicken or egg?" conversation, but I'll answer anyway. From my perspective at the time, which was a freshly bumped DC-9 captain back in the right seat of the 757; our lower pay rates had everything to do with our frozen pension. If I remember correctly, our frozen pension vote came in the fall, while the concessionary contract vote came the next year.

I can tell you that I argued until I was blue in the face with guys with multiple reasons as to why they shouldn't vote for that contract. Almost everyone fell back on the same excuse as to why they would vote for it: they wanted to protect their pensions. IMO, it's the main reason why "we" voted in those lower rates.

So, it's all in how you look at it. I didn't take his statement to imply that we kept the pension because we had lower rates, while it appears that you did. Rather, I thought he was just including the frozen pension as evidence to compare our overall compensation as compared to yours.

I guess we would have to ask him what he meant.

i am Spartacus.

if Newk says vote no, I am voting no.