Am I the only one who sees managements moves to pay off debt, work hard to get listed on the S&P 500 again, dividend payment, dividend increase, stock buy back program, etc., as self serving for managements interests....their own financial interests?

Some on here are worshiping at the alter of Richard Anderson, and I will admit, he has done a great job recovering us from the death spiral Leo, Michelle, and Gerry put us in with our reliability and customer service initiatives, but all the items I listed in the first paragraph ultimately affect Richard and Ed's bottom line more than they do any other shareholder or employee group here. Who benefits most by buying back 2 Billion in stock? The biggest shareholders. Who benefitted most when all the S&P index funds had to buy billions of Delta stock when we hit the S&P 500? The biggest shareholders. Who benefits most when the stock price spikes up after we increase our dividend payment? I think you get it by now.

Paying off debt is great, but there is no such thing as recession proof in this industry. I see the stock buy back, the push to get re-listed on the S&P, as self serving and our upper management is rolling in the dough right now because of these actions. Good for them...to a point. Their rewards have far exceeded what they deserve, in my opinion, while, in my opinion, we haven't been rewarded at all for our effort and sacrifice.

Sorry, rant over. E

Technically correct yet misleading. As I recall, American took very large pay cuts just a little before we took ours. The only difference is that they did not go into bankruptcy until much later. Their rates (and UAL's rates) prior to their pay cuts were pretty close to our much touted C2K rates. In other words, we all had a pretty well established normal level of pay. Sure, we were on top... but not by much. And then we all took absurd pay cuts.

It amazes me how some want to revise history to make it look like C2K was some kind of unprecedented, extreme level of compensation that put us way ahead of the competition. As I've previously demonstrated, that is simply not true. But it does make a pretty good red herring if you're trying to make excuses for why we shouldn't be working to restore our pay.

See above.


So?


Not if our negotiators go in with a mentality like yours.

Not trying to mislead. I'm trying to prove that pay rates that aren't well above the rest - regardless of how they got there - are not vulnerable. American didn't take cuts to their pay rates in bankruptcy because their rates weren't vulnerable.

So a discussion of "buying power" and inflation referencing 1986 earnings is meaningless in this context. We work in a very competitive segment of the private sector. If this was a discussion of how much government workers (like the military) should receive in pay increases, it might matter. We negotiate your pay and benefits based in large part upon how profitable our enterprise is. We don't have to like it, but we should understand it.

Our enterprise is very successful right now. I expect to see significant improvements to our earnings negotiated in the next contract because of that.

I am not attacking you. Can you respond without attacking me?

Not from what I've seen. :eek:

Managements pay is structured to reward certain metrics. When they have proven competent at meeting or exceeding those metrics, they have negotiated pay increases. They are currently at a compensation level which grossly over-rewards them based upon what they have done/can do...in that regard, I agree with you.

With the recent dumping of and competing against Alaska, I see value for us in managements approach. Also, the rumor of severing ties with Korean could prove beneficial for us as well, time will tell.

I am an investor in dal and An employee. I want the stock to do well, but I also want us to kick butt. Dal has been agile in its fleet and routes, I applaud that. The stock performance has enriched me as well. What I want to see is expansion into china and India and more freight ops in the pacific and South America. That is wide body stuff. If that happens profitably, I will retroactively un-agree with you about executive compensation.

Read his post carefully, do a little research, and tell me what is wrong with it. You are a smart guy. What his post is, is more appropriately called propaganda.

Yup, that sounds about right. And from a business perspective, I have no problem with it either.

Your post is very emotional as evidenced by the... shall I use the word "critique"? of those that believe Mr Anderson is doing a fine job... the best job this industry has seen in a long time, if not forever. So you accuse him of being totally motivated by self interest and greed. OK... if that were the case, why would he hang around this industry? After the turnaround he has done at DAL, I am quite certain that he could go many other places and make a ton more coin. In your post, you seem quite class envious of his position. You make a judgement about what he "deserves". That is dangerous ground my friend. Maybe we should write our congressmen to pass the "Anti - dog eat dog rule"... Getting DAL relisted on the S&P is a great thing for DAL. It means that many more investors MUST buy the stock. The buyback value is a bit more tricky. In terms of ROI, it really doesn't make that much money for any shareholder... paying down debt would garner a far better ROI, but I understand the psychology. What it does do is to instill a sense of confidence in management for those shareholders. That is good for us as pilots, because it means more money and more value for the enterprise. Do the execs get rich? You betcha. Do I personally care? Nope, not really. I'm not an executive. I'm not an NBA power forward either getting paid way too much money to play a game. I play the cards I am dealt. And I am not necessarily as cynical as sailingfun about the timing of the next contract. The company might want to lock us in before we hit the $5B debt in 2016. Because after that, it will be really really hard to justify not paying us a lot more. Food for thought.

Splash gets it.

This is from the 4/2014 newsletter...

"Many pilots have questioned why we are adding to the 7ER F/O when the 757 fleet is being reduced over the coming years. The 7ER flying is very seasonal and the summer months are the peak season. At this time, we simply do not have enough 7ER F/Os to fly the 2014 summer schedule and must add quickly if we want to take advantage of all the summer revenue opportunities. Once the summer flying is complete, we will reduce the pilot count on the 7ER. Throughout the remainder of 2014 and into 2015, we will continue to receive 717s and 739s. In 2015, we will also receive four new 330s. Our plan is to reduce the 7ER pilot count by not backfilling as 7ER pilots bid off. If enough 7ER pilots do not bid off, we will post displacements. While that is not our preferred option, our responsibility is to ensure we have the correct number of pilots in position to take advantage of all possible revenue opportunities."

I sure hope they don't displace, but it's not looking good. Maybe they'll change their mind and not retire the 757's as quickly as anticipated? They can cover a lot of the west coast flying with the DTW and ATL 737 bases as we get the -900's. Have they mentioned anything about a narrowbody base in SEA? It seems they're doing a good job feeding with the 76 seaters. Any talk of upgauging those RJ's to mainline in SEA?