![]() |
|
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1677080)
Many First Officers old men Don't talk about Ferd like that. |
Quick topic change
Limit on how many short calls we can do in a row? |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1677213)
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 268 million at 21 per million which was the quoted dollar amount per percentage raise is about a 12.87 percent raise in wages alone. Add ADG etc and it is very will within the the range my own costing came to. You add ADG, take the credits for the slick leave modification, scope, and other work rule changes, like adding value to a training and vacation day, reducing on call days etc, then costing the scope language etc, and if desired call of that shifting of the deck chairs, the dollar amount stated rational with what was claimed at the road shows. To add to this, no mec member that was in that room for seven days prior to approving the ta to be sent out for MEMRAT ever disagreed with the number. Its not being a lemming, its doing the costing on your own, and then fact or craping it, and realizing that the number is logical given the package as a whole. IE the number mesh up. Wether or not it was good enough for each pilot is a personal question and a vote, but my work showed me that the costing that was publicly stated is reasonable. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1677184)
The NDA signed by members of the MEC and select committee members is not a "alpa NDA" but a corporate SEC NDA.
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1677184)
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.
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1677184)
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.
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1677184)
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.
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1677184)
We are a 2.5 billion dollar a year expense, about what the CAPEX per annum is.
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1677184)
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.
Carl |
Carl;
You are an entrepreneur. You understand above and below the line costing, you get cost allocation, cap ex etc. You also understand the MRO world, and the costs associated with MRO. Why is it that for the life of you, you cannot grasp the fact that DAL had an approved CAPEX on the CRJ 50's MRO costs and was a cost expenditure (CAPEX) approved by the BOD, which RA decided to reallocate to pilot costs, and in turn renegotiate the DCI CPA's and keep the overall below the line costs neutral or within the GDP cost creep back in 2012? All of which allowed DAL to sell the "cost neutral" verbiage to Wall Street? One does not have to do with the other. We are a departmental cost, and ours went up, they robbed CAPEX from DCI MRO and brought it over to our line on the ledger. Even I would was not in love with the TA understood the mechanics of how it transpired. |
Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy
(Post 1677204)
I get it Carl. Since YOU don't know; obviously no one does.
Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy
(Post 1677204)
Have a nice day.
Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1677222)
I've not said anything different.
I'll bet that's right. That would align with my experience as well. Again, I agree. Which is why it's a fallacious argument to state that management must be giving out correct pilot line item costing numbers because the pilot board member would cry foul if they didn't. That's patently false. OK. Don't disagree. Carl I would expect that if the costing was incorrect and that different numbers were given, it would be made known to the MEC. That said, I do not think that the BOD gets briefed on the specific pilot costing numbers, but and overall view. Any BOD that I have been on gets what looks like a detailed 8-K with more breakdown but not to the granular level that some expect. Carl; You will have to just trust me (I know what you will say) when I tell you that the accusation asserted against our pilot director and the position are not a grave concern of mine. Costing is agreed to by both parties (ALPA and the Company) during negotiations. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1677219)
Carl;
268 million at 21 per million which was the quoted dollar amount per percentage raise is about a 12.87 percent raise in wages alone. Add ADG etc and it is very will within the the range my own costing came to. You add ADG, take the credits for the slick leave modification, scope, and other work rule changes, like adding value to a training and vacation day, reducing on call days etc, then costing the scope language etc, and if desired call of that shifting of the deck chairs, the dollar amount stated rational with what was claimed at the road shows.
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1677219)
To add to this, no mec member that was in that room for seven days prior to approving the ta to be sent out for MEMRAT ever disagreed with the number.
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1677219)
Its not being a lemming, its doing the costing on your own, and then fact or craping it, and realizing that the number is logical given the package as a whole. IE the number mesh up.
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1677219)
Wether or not it was good enough for each pilot is a personal question and a vote, but my work showed me that the costing that was publicly stated is reasonable.
Carl |
Nice job with Carl.
Fact is money flowed to pilots pockets. The money came from the company. I could care less where the company got the money from. I'll take cost neutral or otherwise as long as I think the MEC is satisfied that we have captured as much as possible. |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1677231)
Hmmm...no mention of the profit sharing reductions, ALV and reserve changes, reduction of summer month days, sick leave harassment, etc. That's exactly what I was talking about with guys who only talk about their gains in the stock market. Losses count too if you want an accurate net.
Yes it is acl. It's the very definition of being a lemming. Carl Ok, Carl, I guess call call different things lemmings, but that is fine. My sky is blue today, is your green? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:45 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands