Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1660186)

Two different things here. A strike vote doesn't mean an actual strike. If we ever have a strike vote, you will 100% vote no. Absolutely guaranteed and is actually what I've stated publicly. If we ever actually struck, my hope is that you would walk with your brothers. But your long history of totally self-interested posts does give me pause about you.



This is just ranting tsquare. Please find a post that you believe backs up these assertions.



Right now, SWA, FDX, UPS and most of our foreign JV "partners." Later this year, UAL. Next year, APA.



It will never be "time" for you tsquare. Doing anything other than what management/DALPA tells you to do is just too risky and inappropriate in your mind. It's not all about timing tsquare, it's about leadership versus followership. You're a follower.

Carl

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1660188)

If you were a negotiator you would use this tack right up until Richard told you to decide what you want to give up for the gains you seek. Then you would say: "Let me get back to you on that Mr. Anderson."

Anything else is giving management a bloody nose that will only hurt the stock price.

Carl

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1660192)

That's a pretty flimsy plan. I don't think any legacy is going to exceed them by anywhere near their original hyper growth cost differential. Those days are over and their growth is pretty much tapped out domestically. While everyone for some reason seems to think super low yielding Hawaiian ETOPS will make it rain money, SWA needs to go international big time if they ever want to grow as an airline. Big time international too, not just Caribbean and CA/upper SA international.

They could also get in bed with foreign airlines, but their hub structure is very weak for that and it likely won't change. They need widebodies to fly to EU, Asia and deep SA. But if they do that, their costs will further increase at a time they would be declaring nuclear war on the premium revenue of everyone else with little capacity to spare for anyone.

Yet if they stagnate…

I think they have at least one more merger in them, and it will likely be all or part of JB. They need a much, much, much bigger NYC presence before they ever attempt 787's over the pond.

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1660216)

It is my opinion that the UAL pilots do not create higher W-2's than DAL pilots. There are other considerations however, and it's a lot of apples v. oranges (think DH and dry cleaning v. reserve rules and 1CA3FO on 8:00-12:00 flts). How the value totals up in the end is up to the experts, but from what I've seen of my friends at UAL and what they are taking home (and how much time at home they get), I would not want to work under their UPA instead of ours.

Overall UALPA did get dang close in total value, AMR eliminated the "LCC anchor" and has a "pay rate parity review" in 2016. All of that plus working for a very profitable DAL enterprise with little debt and strong positive cash flow bodes very well for us in 9 months (much like 2000).

I truly don't care about seeing survey results... I really only care about seeing actual results**.

**My W-2 was up 23.6% YOY 2012 versus 2013 (for working the same # of days)
My 2013 versus 2014 gross (excluding PS) is up 26.7% YTD.
(in same seat for the entire time)

I'm leaning towards calling those real results, YRMV.

Originally Posted by newKnow (Post 1660369)

I'm just making it home off a trip, so I apologize for the brief response. It's really just a question -- I guess for anyone.

How are American's pay rates going to be calculated in the future?

Somewhere I thought I saw where Americans pay rates will somehow be tied to the average of us and United and maybe someone else (SWA?). Is that true?

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1660387)

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Look alfa, I understand your need to walk back your earlier comments about showing active pilots as a metric to "prove" that we're not liquidating. But nothing of this post changes the fact that we are operating ~70 aircraft less, we're selling off real estate and business centers, and we're "laying off" non-frontline employees. When you do these things and don't replace them with anything, that's slowly liquidating. How long will it continue? Who knows. But that's our reality.

Carl

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1660387)

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Look alfa, I understand your need to walk back your earlier comments about showing active pilots as a metric to "prove" that we're not liquidating. But nothing of this post changes the fact that we are operating ~70 aircraft less, we're selling off real estate and business centers, and we're "laying off" non-frontline employees. When you do these things and don't replace them with anything, that's slowly liquidating. How long will it continue? Who knows. But that's our reality.

Carl

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1660409)

You really don't read your own posts. But I think this post of mine was 5 or 6 years ago when our management was indeed slowly liquidating the airline in an attempt to stem our rather large losses. That wasn't a prediction (or predication in your case), it was a statement of fact. I finished it with what I bolded above so even you should have been able to see it wasn't a prediction/predication.

Carl

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1660402)

dALPA/management hack.:D

Originally Posted by index (Post 1660389)

Nothing has changed. Sailing is still making the same time value of money argument.

He says RA (our CEO who owns more than $100 million in DAL stock/options) won't give us 12.8% upfront (forget the fact that we're 20% behind 2004 pay rates, not including inflation). As if a 12.8% is some pie in the sky figure---it still doesn't get us where we were a decade ago, or, by the time sailing says this will play out, 15 years later!

Sailing is basically saying your choice is to either "hold out" for 3+ years or---take the 3/3/3/3 and be happy.