Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 1677291)

Alfa it shows a shift of flying from DCI to mainline. That's the explanation, 50 seaters became 76 seaters, and 76 seaters became 717s.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1677288)

So here is some hard math, I will get a few kicks watching you squirm out of what you have proclaimed so loudly.

Let's look at pay first. The compounded increase in pay was 19.7%. Other pay items (MD-88, per diem, international pay, etc.) added another .8%. Increased DC another 1% that sums to 21.5% Profit sharing decrease equaled 2% loss so the net on pay is 19.5%

Let's assume that you start with an average pilot cost of $160,000 per pilot (that's low but close enough) with 11,000 pilots. Net cost is $1.76 billion.

Now, increase the average by 19.5% and the average cost goes up to $191,200 per head. In order to be "cost neutral" or no net cost as you claim, you would have to reduce the pilot count to 9,205 ($1.76 billion divided by $191,200) pilots or a loss of 1,795 pilots. That is how much the "massive" productivity gains would force you to lose.

Below is a graph that shows the trailing twelve month average of pilots required. You use pilots required rather than actual head count, because pilots required is the number required by the contract and that is how you measure the impact of work rule changes. You use a trailing twelve month average to smooth out the vagaries of seasonal flying changes. That graph does not seem to show a loss of 1,795 jobs even before the 717's arrived. Explain

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...20Required.JPG

Originally Posted by buzzpat (Post 1677297)

It's a start. Much better than it used to be. Not where it should be by any stretch but better.

Originally Posted by buzzpat (Post 1677297)

It's a start. Much better than it used to be. Not where it should be by any stretch but better.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1677298)

Your usual snarkiness notwithstanding, there's nothing to squirm out of. The number of pilots required means nothing when it comes to showing whether C2012 was a net value gain for Delta pilots versus a net value neutral or even a net value loss. Again, not talking about pilot head count, we're talking about the claim of net contractual value added.

If you really want to add truth and clarity, post the line item costing management gave for our gains and our concessions in C2012. Then we can all sum the columns and derive a net value.

Thank you.

Carl

Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 1677315)

Possibly, these are actually merger synergies. The size of the 76 seater network pretty much mirrors the size of the 50 seater network pre bankruptcy and merger. Obviously, major overlap between NWA and DAL was replaced by larger jets.

Originally Posted by buzzpat (Post 1677354)

That's simply not true. There was very little overlap between NWA and DAL. Ergo a very successful merger. Your opinions are inaccurate. Secondly, the 76 seater numbers are far fewer currently than the number of 50 seaters were prior to our most recent contract.

And why does your CEO-ship care?

WTH are you looking at?

Originally Posted by buzzpat (Post 1677354)

That's simply not true. There was very little overlap between NWA and DAL. Ergo a very successful merger. Your opinions are inaccurate. Secondly, the 76 seater numbers are far fewer currently than the number of 50 seaters were prior to our most recent contract.

And why does your CEO-ship care? I work at DCI

WTH are you looking at?

Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1677330)

I listed some of the gains, I left out a bunch of others like vacation increase and increased reserve guarantee. Besides the profit sharing all other concessions had to do with head count. If you increase pay by 19.5%, how do you get to cost neutral?

See, you are wiggling and squirming. The only way to get those types of cost savings is with massive head count loss. Where does that show up? Certainly if you make these claims, you have to have something to back them up, some analysis, something other than your made up statements. Right? Can't you at least tell us five things that were concessioncs that added up to that much head count reduction? Can't you then explain how the head count reduction of about 100 before the 717's showed up (which, by the way is pretty much exactly what we predicted) does not come close to offsetting the pay increases?

Certainly you can come up with something other than personal attacks. Or can't you?

Originally Posted by bohicagain (Post 1677218)

Quick topic change
Limit on how many short calls we can do in a row?