Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1677928)

I'd like everyone to recall the roadshows and the mailings back during the TA2012 vote. Slowplay was a high up MEC administrator at the time and was loudly proclaiming both here and at the road shows of what management's Plan B would be if we voted this TA down. "They'll just re-engine those 50 seaters and keep them flying instead of giving that money to us." And then: "Isn't that what you guys wanted?...the 50 seaters going away instead of being re-engined and kept flying?"

Many of us stated clearly both here and at the road shows that management would never spend money on re-engining 50 seat pigs that our pax hated. Slowplay and the other MEC administrators were clear in that it was management's Plan B if we voted NO.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1677928)

It's good the truth finally comes out. It's good to also see why so many of us referred to those road shows as nothing more than a sales/fear campaign.

Maybe this time we'll see a FUD campaign for what it is...because there will definitely be another FUD campaign for C2015.

Carl

Originally Posted by JABDIP (Post 1677829)

Work rules is the way to go here. For the first 2 years under the new PWA I worked 34 more days a year for the same monthly time (approx 75_78 hours a month) and made less W_2 money than I made under the old NWA contract. We actually took a pay cut and a downgrade in QOL because of the difference in work rules. Not trying to slam the DAL contract just stating facts that happened to me. For all you nonbelievers (because of the so called huge pay raises, yes there was a substantial hourly rate increase) I'll be happy to PM my W_2s to prove this not to mention loosing 3% to 401k on top of making less. Happy to report that in year 3 finally made more than my last NWA W_2 year but I am still working approx 30_34 more days a year. Work rules are huge, its not just the almighty hourly rate!!!;)

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1677681)

If dal funded the 401k to the 415c limit without any required input from me, I personally would consider that a huge improvement.

Originally Posted by Piklepausepull (Post 1677883)

PMFJIH. So you think a new hire should get a larger raise than you right out of the starting gate?:confused:

Interesting!

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1677938)

I agree that the junior guys would benefit more than the senior ones on this, I am also still pondering the "so what?" aspect of that.

At what level of income does taxation erode raises to not worth it status? I ask that only because each individual has different write offs. So, the number is somewhat different for each person.

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1677938)

I agree that the junior guys would benefit more than the senior ones on this, I am also still pondering the "so what?" aspect of that.

At what level of income does taxation erode raises to not worth it status? I ask that only because each individual has different write offs. So, the number is somewhat different for each person.

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1677940)

Show one place where I ever wrote that the 50 seaters would be re-engined.

You won't find it.

Show one ALPA produced publication that said 50 seaters would be re-engined, or that all the 50 seaters would keep flying.

You won't find it.

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1677940)

ALPA has never said that Delta will keep all of the 50 seaters. Delta has a path without us and will significantly shrink the number of DCI 50 seaters. That path is slower and has additional risk, but doesn't reduce the 50 seat count nearly as low as the TA. They've already laid the groundwork for keeping 50 seat flying (PCL bankruptcy agreement) and have started a CF-34 engine lease program from other airline previously grounded CRJ-100/200 to delay/defer maintenance on Delta engines.

Originally Posted by Piklepausepull (Post 1677979)

I wouldn't be opposed to that scale.

It just seems that from the "I want mine too" file, the "dead zoners" should be plused (+) up for the "lost" years.

I went almost 15 years thinking Mother Delta would take care of me in retirement........

Originally Posted by Elvis90 (Post 1677989)

Slowplay, you said the following around post #10217:



http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ma...lta-10217.html

The company would start a new engine lease program for the 50-seaters which would make C2012 "fait accompli" as far as the pilot group was concerned.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1675525)

You have made comment about how we are not being paid in accordance with our responsibility. Yet you believe for some reason that bigger must pay more. Those two concepts are diametrically opposed unless you can show a way to devalue the life of a single human being on any given airplane. IOW, if a 777 MUST pay more than an RJ because the captain "has more responsibility", then you are saying that the kid sitting in 3A is somehow less valuable than the one in 47H of the 777. But.. the argument will go that the 777 captain has more of those bodies on board. That is irrelevant in this context. A single human life has value. A 777 captain has one chance each day to kill 300 people. A 717 captain has the opportunity to kill 300 passengers each day also, and in his environment, he is actually MORE likely to be able to do it because the majority of the flight time of a 777 is spent on autopilot, at altitude. The 717 does 4+ landings and takeoffs each day. Remind me again which is the most "dangerous" part of any flight? (I really don't spend too much time worrying about engine losses at altitude other than track diverts, but we brief V1 every... single.... time.)

Diatribe aside, bigger pays more is a stupid way to be paid, especially since we do not buy equipment. MANAGEMENT does.