Yeah, that chart is way to nebulous to be of any real value.

It did break on the other board first.

Yes, civil debate is preferred.

Sometimes the admin get ahead of the Reps.

Occasionally you have some very smart heavy hitters show up and talk candidly. It is a great opportunity to lean. Maybe not the best opportunity to debate (frankly, there are good reasons for closed session and this is about as opposite as you can get).

Pay banding, like Split Duty Period flying, isn't entirely bad. Both could increase pay by transferring efficiencies into our pocket. Both are potential hits (or improvements) to quality of life. I would happily bid SPD flying if it was ~1 hour legs to a 7:30 behind the door. I would rather be boiled in tar than fly ~3 hour legs to a 4 hour overnight. A divert on duty could be a nightmare with flying the next day. In all these things, the details really matter.

That's why I would really like to see official communications on these sort of productivity trades, well before surveys and well before negotiations. It would be best for these fact to be vetted by our Strategic Planning and Comm operations (which are expensive BTW, we should get our money's worth from these high level admin experts).

It would have been nice (or could be nice) to do this behind an ALPA firewall in a committee corner (web board) or some such place. The problem (and the reason we can't enjoy nice web boards) is because some people want to fight, get personal and create liability exposures for our association. Maybe if we just Section VIII'd those troublemakers and locked them out :p (but hey, they'd probably boot me too :eek: )

Pay banding would allow massive base shifts (close CVG, MSP, etc ...) with little cost, or training waterfall. But, what a giftastic quote ....

First reaction ...


At this point, I don't think an Alaska merger would ever get approval without our nation being in the midst of a depression and one, the other, or both, carriers on their knees.

(T, know I'm just messing with you man :) no offense intended)

It's data for the mainline only.

A couple of questions:

Question 1.) Why did the company want an expedited process in 2012?

Question 2.) Why did we agree to an expedited process in 2012?

Question 3.) Why hasn't the company shown interest in an expedited process, so far?

Question 4.) Are we pushing for an expedited process in 2015?


It doesn't seem like it.

It seems to me that when the company want's something, we get a push from the union to move forward and make it happen, because it's in our best interests. But, when we want something -- the exact same thing, 3 years later -- there is a discouraging tone of resignation that it will never happen.

Question 5.) Why is it not good for the gander this time? :confused:

I learned a new finance term from Delta management.

"Peanut butter."

Its use is; take costs, then you spread them around. How much cost is allocated to mainline, that mainline does not use, but is used by codeshare partners?

I think those are all very fair questions.

Interesting. The 737.would be my last choice here if we did LBP.

So if we adopted LBP tomorrow, and I'm number one and want to get to 777B I have to.wait for an AE? It would take years for everyone to get where they wanted. No thanks. We are too old for that.

No offense taken. :)

It covers some of the costs that Medicare doesn't cover:
What's Medicare supplement (Medigap) insurance? | Medicare.gov
Other such plans are offered by DALRC, AARP, Humana, etc.
Only the DPMP and DALRC plans get a partial subsidy from Delta, but otherwise they are all in the same ballpark IMHO.
It's true that the average person will pay more in premiums than they will collect in benefits (like all insurance works), and here's an article which says you probably don't need it:
Medicare Supplemental Policies: Do You Need One? | David Belk