Fixed your post.

Carl

They did the same thing to us when the C2012 TA was being voted on. DALPA was in full sales mode when management did an interview calling the upcoming contract (which they were certain would be voted in) was a cost neutral contract. The MEC had to quickly come out and refute management's claim by using made up numbers they couldn't prove or release.

That's the new model. DALPA/management are believers in overall cost neutrality.

DALPA thinks they are extremely effective. They just won't tell us what their definition of "effective" is.

Carl

Carl, I asked you in the past to produce the statement you quote often from management. The statement actually said that the company hoped the increased revenue would offset the costs of the new contract. Big difference. If tomorrow we made a contract change that allowed the company 4 billion more in revenue and they offered to double our pay to 2 billion in exchange would you call that a pay cut?

I disagree. The reality is we are a business that fails or prospers based on its cost structure relative to its revenue structure. To the extent that we produce a product that generates revenues superior to those of our competitors (which the numbers being shown at DALPA PUB events indicate), we can readily afford costs that are higher than those of our competitors.

And one of our reps' main jobs will be to convince the powers that be, i.e., the NMB, that it's about more than just comparing our straight costs to those of our competitors. If they can't find a way to do that, I'm not sure where we'll find the leverage we need to get Delta to pay us what they can surely afford.

It would really help if SWA and AMR would get off their butts and produce a industry leading contract in the above regard. SWA seems to be going no where after over two years of negotiations. We will see how the American pilots do in their JC. I hope they get a lot more then we have now. The revenue generation of the airline seems every bit as good as Delta now and they have not even begun to realize the benefits of their merger.

Agreed....

Q2 earnings call 2012, IIRC, Ed Bastian said the pilot contract was cost positive to the company due to the RJ restructuring. The regional restructuring with rate reset is worth over $1 billion per year, in revenue boost + cost savings.

Bear in mind that this restructuring and its added value could well have taken place without C2012. many have conjectured that Delta would have bought the 717's anyway and that the 50-seaters were going away without or without the scope changes in the deal.

To the extent that's true, I do not believe one can then attribute those revenue boost and cost savings solely to C2012.

I don't know sailing, SWA hired one of the best pilot cost controllers the world could ever know, an ALPA president.

Sailing.

Respectfully, I must insist on this.

I follow financial news now fairly consistently. Never did before in my life until BK wiped away my pension and lump sum that I "never needed to worry about."

Now I carefully invest for myself and have finally become some what consistent with it. I had to teach myself but I'm glad I did.

I recall reading on Bloomberg and in the IBD that Delta management was touting the "cost neutral contract agreement" and they were going into detail to emphasize that to the financial community and press.

Not once did I see your reference that the company hoped that increased revenue would off set the costs.

Please provide a link to any article or financial briefing transcript that supports your specific claims.

A search I ran on your claims was unfruitful. I would search more, however, I have little time to do so on this trip.

I'm genuinely interested in seeing your response and references..

Thanks. Have a good weekend.