It is simply not correct Carl, and just because you keep saying it over and over again doesn't change that truth.

The $400 million is the NET (as in after all the pluses and minuses) increase in YOY costs that are now enriching the bank accounts of Delta Pilots.

Let me repeat it for others, because you really don't get it: DAL reduced a couple hundred million in DCI expenses on one part of their ledger and that amount was then put into the pilot PWA.

Cost neutral to the overall enterprise but significantly cost positive to the Delta pilots.

 

I don't know what the big deal is with the 76 seaters, there doesn't seem to be any less than eighty people going anywhere. Eventually even the company will figure that one out. I sure would like to know what the load factor is for the 717.

 

Not sure why you hurl insults like that. I don't come around here much, but like it or not Sailing comes off as a good bit more intelligent than you do (no offense intended because the real Carl Spackler is a national treasure)...and as someone just pointed out, you continue to trot out discredited canards, I suppose to attract adherents to a view that is eroding more quickly every day...but I'm sure a successful DPA vote is imminent and will change all that...."Freeze Gopher"

 

It is exactly true shiznit. No matter how many times you MEC types want to define over and over again what management said, management said it. They've never taken it back. We're seeing the results today.

That number changes constantly from you MEC types. Why? Because you've made it up. You won't show your numbers any more than you'll show the survey results from the last contract. Nobody's buying it.

I'll repeat what mangement said because I know it's your job to spin. Management said our contract was cost neutral. But they went further. They said that the pilot's contract was so "good" that it would provide for Delta being able to invest in initiatives that would benefit other employee groups at Delta. We're seeing that now with all other employee groups being back to their pre-bankruptcy wages.

No matter how often you want to redefine this with statements and numbers you can't possibly back up, it's just not true. Maybe we'll be getting a thank you from the other employee groups for our concessions.

Carl

 

You need to change your talking points Gomer. DPA has nothing to do with this. Never has. Try to stay on topic.

Carl

 

The poster stated we increased the allowed number of 76 seaters. That was not the case and all I stated. In fact based on the newest fleet plan they could have the number of 76 seaters they seem content with under the old or new contract.

 

IF and ONLY IF they parked 70 seaters. Those are aircraft that they want to keep.

You're only reemphasizing my continued assertion that you are just awful at analysis.

 

 

The issue is that what you posted was terribly distorted. C2012 allowed for a greater number of jumbo RJ's (70 through 76 seaters). Of that there can be no doubt. I know you know that...which makes a distorted post like yours troubling. Troubling because it's hard to know why you do it.

Carl

 

So Carl's wrong and Sailing is right--C2012 reduced the number of 76 seaters?