Does that plane have a critical engine?

Wan't this plane built under communism, so it requires like 23 pilots?

Is Soviet design. Is all kritical.

And one Political Officer, but you're never sure which one he is...

Well Carl, in an aggregate yes that is about the added cost per year to the DAL PWA. As it was explained to me, the added value was just over a billion in added cost to the PWA over three years. Day one bump was about 268 million dollars. 1% equates to about 22-23 million. Johnso was correct when he made that statement on added pilot costs. It was briefed in the road shows etc that this was the added cost of the PWA.

The "zero cost" was to the company from an investor perspective. DAL had a CAPEX expense for the MRO on the 50 seat jets, and approached the MEC about finding a way out of the CPA's with the 50 seat DCI lift and transferring the CAPEX costs for the MRO to the pilot PWA. I never saw the actual costing but this was the opportunity as explained from many Reps that were there, and the genesis of "a zero cost contract." It was not zero cost to our wallets. Like it, love it or hate it, C2012 did add pilot costs to the company.


I did not intend to. Briefings are separate. We get briefed last. Hence the verbiage. The DAL Execs do brief us too.


The NDA signed by members of the MEC and select committee members is not a "alpa NDA" but a corporate SEC NDA. I do not know what the DALPA Pilot Director signs, and if there is a secondary NDA for that. If so, its of no consequence to me. As I said, there are fiduciary responsibilities as a board member. I am guessing, but I assume that pilot costing will more than likely get discussed at a very high level by the BOD. Its a line item, and they look at all of it.

The DAL BOD likely acts and functions like many boards, and certain members are precluded on sitting in on certain briefings in committee. IE they can sit on certain BOD Committees. Generally the CEO is not on the finance review committee etc. I assume the same would go with an employee pilot director. That's also part of the fiduciary responsibility of a board of directors.

In the end, I will bet that DAL and DALPA do it right as it pertains to the pilot director. Costing for the Pilot Costs are generally a Flight Ops item. Executive Level gets involved, of course, but the BOD paints with a much broader brush. We are a 2.5 billion dollar a year expense, about what the CAPEX per annum is. Most boards elect a CEO they can trust and have him and his team present to the BOD, then they vote or approve the plan.

He's the one who's job doesn't get outsourced.

I get it Carl. Since YOU don't know; obviously no one does. Have a nice day.

Wait a minute Carl, you can't have it both ways. You just went on a long rant about how you know all about NDA's because you are so awesome and have served on two boards. But when PG does it he is chest thumping?

Hypocrite much?

The problem is that you believe what you are told or briefed during a roadshow. I do not. I need to see how those numbers were derived to determine the net value to pilots. It's like guys who say they made a million dollars in the stock market so far this year, and when you ask them how much they lost, the subject gets changed.

I think the evidence is clear that our contract added very little net gain to pilots. All the dots connect to that conclusion despite DALPA's angry protestations to the contrary. DALPA could clear it up, but they won't. Because of that we may never know the truth. And sadly, even a rep like you may never know.

Carl

I understand that's the DALPA definition of what management stated, but it's not what management said. They've chosen not to define it further, which is interesting since it would help DALPA's poor credibility amongst pilots.

Again, I understand that's what you've been told by MEC administrators. That's different from actual fact.

That's exactly right. You're believing what you were told.

Sorry, not buying it.

Carl