gloopy

The most visionary thing about Jobs IMO was his relentless pursuit of the product especially the interface. MS was always arrogant and pushed things to market that weren't ready because they knew you'd buy it anyway and that neanderthal linebacker Ballmer took that dropped ball and ran it back into his own endzone giving Apple a safety, 2 points and the ball back. They are finally starting to focus on build quality and along with the iClones in the phone sector are finally copying OS enough to compete and in some cases bypass Apple's built in slower update/release schedule.

You gotta give Apple credit though; not only do they make great stuff, they make their competition make way better stuff than they otherwise would.

Those MS stores at the malls are absolutely hillarious though. Total Apple Store knock offs including the blue shirts, casual jeans look and white I.D. holders, but sans nearly as many customers. At least they're trying. I guess.

gloopy

I agree and also think UAL will get their act together eventually as well. But I think those are both very good things for DAL. The problem before was way too many competitors all barfing 50 seats into every market to "hub raid" while ultimately dragging everyone down. Then one would always block an otherwise attainable fare increase, while everyone would glut capacity in the good times and surrender to the longevity resetting start up churn in the bad times. I think those days are thankfully over. 4 much stronger, healthier and more rational competitors will finally be able to flex up to the good times while weathering the down times as well as take it hard to the insolent LCC endless growth mode airlines and hopefully the foreign megalomaniacs as well.

On a related note, much more resistance in the House to renew the BoB (Bank of Boeing)'s fake royal triple emirati welfare fund. IIRC, it doesn't auto-renew in September but has to actually win re-aprooval. Its a good time to be a Congressman right now, particularly if you like to golf or eat prime steaks on a Sheik or Boeing credit card.

gloopy

That's not just implied. Its literally paying dividends. Billions and billions worth, and that won't do anything whatsoever to improve our health long term. At least we are paying off debt at a nice pace. I'd like to see that short term shareholder payout all go to paying off more debt and investing in the product and employees.

I don't expect the company to hand over a blank check, but if they start digging in with any of that "let them eat cake" cost neutral COLA raise only nonsense, its going to be their "a contract is a contract" Waterloo.

Purple Drank

thanks, gloop!
(and buzz)

Carl Spackler

And each time I pasted the exact quotes from Richard, Ed and Glenn. Those quotes showed them describing the TA as cost neutral. Further, they stated that the contract will provide for so much cost savings that it will allow the company to invest in initiatives to benefit other employees throughout the company. Go back and read my posts from back then.

It did not. Nowhere in the numerous interview and investor call transcripts that I read did anyone in management say this. Nowhere.

Carl

Carl Spackler

Please post the relevant portion of the annual reports that show this from the time C2012 was signed. That's important because we're talking about C2012...not costs since the merger.

Carl

Carl Spackler

Yes, that's what happens in non-unionized employee groups. I'd rather be in a union. It should be that way, but it isn't.

We don't have to like it, but we ought to understand.

Carl

sailingfun

Carl, I read that section of the thread. No where duped you post a actual statement that I could find. There were rebuttals to what you posted from other pilots. Here is one of the best.

Anything is possible, but none of what you've suggested as possible was ever said by management. They had plenty of opportunity to add these nuances that you suggest, but they chose not to. I believe they chose not to because it's not what they meant. They meant exactly what they said whcih was: 'The TA will be cost neutral to Delta, and the cost savings will fund other priorities as well...'

Except that's not what they said then, or now.

I think it's because you're trying to hang on to a scenario that today's evidence makes all but impossible. You're hanging on to that scenario by putting words into the mouths of our management team that they never said.

Carl
Carl,

At the risk of using too many big words for you I will restate my points. Our entire contract is not cost neutral to Delta. It is cost positive to Delta. Our labor produces revenues that dwarf the cost of our contract. Delta charges their customers much more money than it costs Delta to pay us including benefits.

So what you are trying to do is play word games. If our contract changes were Cost Neutral to Delta then it is even more of a win since in general pilot costs are 1 in 18 of all revenue. What you and your friends are trying to do is confuse people into thinking that this was cost neutral for Delta PILOTS. It was not cost neutral to Delta pilots, in fact it was a giant pay and benefit increase for Delta pilots.

If senior management describes a business plan that covers the cost of pilot labor, gate agent labor, aircraft ownership costs, fuel, swizzle sticks, and on and on, then that should be about as Earth shattering as the fact that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow. Of course they cover their costs. How would they stay in business if they didn't?

The union's job is to carve out as much of that revenue as is possible for pilots. They should not care what the sources of that revenue are and they should understand that in all cases, our pay and benefits will be dwarfed by total revenue, they have to be or the company will go out of business.

So you are trying to confuse pilots into thinking that it is cost neutral from a pilot perspective and that is wrong. Why some reps try to play that same game, including some incoming reps is beyond me. However, the Delta pilots were not confused, they understand that pay and benefits are going up by about 25-30% all in and productivity is increasing by about 1-2%. Everyone knows that 25-30% is more than 1-2%. That is the critical factor, that is what pays the bills, that is what improves the lives of pilots. That is why these 5 reps could not articulate a single plan that made any sense that would have improved upon these results. Hoping that management will just come back for more is not a plan that is self delusion.

All the rest of this is just obfuscation where you are trying to confuse people into thinking that there is something sinister with the fact that Delta has to produce much more revenue that even our improved TA costs them. Delta managers describe that most basic fact and you treat it like it is some magic revelation.

Our pay hit the amendable date 12.85% above our previous rate, a record achievement. To be cost neutral to Delta pilots we would have to reduce our headcount by 1,400 pilots. Given 200 early outs, that means I must have missed the 1,200 furlough notices that were handed out. That would be cost neutral.

sailingfun

Delta pilot costs

2011-1,607,000,000

2012-1,678,000,000

2013-1,917,000,000

Source form 4 data

Total improvement since contract signed 310 million
Costed contract improvements by company and DALPA approx. 400 million.Year 14 and 15 raises just over 7 percent adding additional 70 to 80 million in end game numbers. Very close to costed numbers.

TheManager

Next House Leader Says He Would Let Trade Bank Expire



WASHINGTON — Representative Kevin McCarthy, the next House majority leader, said Sunday that he would allow the Export-Import Bank of the United States to expire when its authority was up for reauthorization in the fall.

In his first national television interview since being elected Thursday to be the No. 2 Republican in the House, Mr. McCarthy, of California, said Congress had decided in a previous vote that the bank, responsible for supporting American exports, should be phased out.

“One of the biggest problems of government is they go and take hard-earned money so others do things that the private sector can do,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.” “That’s what the Ex-Im Bank does.”

Mr. McCarthy is a member of the House Committee on Financial Services, which is scheduled to hold a hearing on the bank on Wednesday.

The House overwhelmingly supported extending the bank’s charter in 2012 despite pressure from conservative groups, including the Club for Growth and Heritage Action for America, which argued that the bank’s support for major businesses like Boeing amounted to corporate welfare and could put taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars.

But business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce rallied lawmakers behind the bank, arguing that exports and, by extension, the economy would suffer without it to level the playing field the way other countries support their own exporters.

Mr. McCarthy voted to reauthorize the bank at the time.

Since the 1930s, the bank has offered financial support for foreign buyers of American products and services exported to international markets. Its reauthorization was once routine for Congress.

Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia — who will step down as majority leader next month after losing his primary to a Tea Party-backed candidate — negotiated the three-year reauthorization with Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic whip.

Discussing other issues he will confront in his new leadership role, Mr. McCarthy also called for first establishing a broader approach to the growing power of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and other armed groups as insurgents continue taking cities across Iraq.

“If you don’t have an overall strategy, how do we push back this momentum of this terrorism that’s growing throughout the entire region?” he asked. “To me, the key part was: Lay out a strategy, then we could see the outcome of what we need to do to make it happen.”

Mr. McCarthy did not exclude any United States option in Iraq, noting in particular that airstrikes might be “a very good, big, key part of it.”

“I’d put everything on the table,” he said. “But most people, when you talk to them, don’t think boots on the ground would work right now, that you don’t need it.”

Mr. McCarthy seemed to close the door on the potential for a comprehensive immigration overhaul, saying that he would not consider one without first addressing border security.

“Until you secure the borders, you cannot have a conversation about anything else,” he said.

David Brat, who defeated Mr. Cantor in his primary, battered the majority leader for supporting what critics call amnesty for illegal immigrants, leading some to question whether support for comprehensive immigration changes was dangerous for Republicans heading into the midterm elections.

With the Highway Trust Fund that supports infrastructure projects going broke, Mr. McCarthy also said he opposed raising the gasoline tax.

“I believe one of the options that we put forward two years ago was an idea for a new funding source,” he said on the Fox program. “Open up federal lands for exploration, federal government, put that into resources to help build the bridges and roads that we need.”