|
|
This airport in Germany seems pretty busy!
|
Absent the scope concession for 70 more 76 seat jets, the concessions for
99 hour reserve cap 2 hour increase in ALV reduction in profit sharing changing summer calendar Were all completely not necessary. Who makes concessions during record profits? We all know now (looking forward) that given the billions returned to the shareholders, there was much more on the table and these additional concessions were not necessary. Looking ahead to C2015, management and some nameless, gutless cowards will work behind our backs to sell concessions to fund improvements to our PWA. The will tell you it is a great idea to reduce profit sharing and concede to pay banding. Where do they get these ideas? Directly from management. Why would a Delta pilot working under a bankruptcy contract at a company making record profits, record margins and record payouts to shareholders even conceive of trading concessions for improvements? Concessions should never be part of any dialogue for C2015. Challenge it wherever at rears it's ugly head. Everyone needs to do their part, everyone needs to lift. Call and write your reps. Tell them you support them and the negotiating committee 100%. That you applaud them for committing to a historic C2015 in True Headings 14-2. JF |
RER it is! Thanks GJ!
|
RER it is! Thanks GJ! |
Originally Posted by gzsg
(Post 1678744)
Absent the scope concession for 70 more 76 seat jets, the concessions for
99 hour reserve cap 2 hour increase in ALV reduction in profit sharing changing summer calendar Were all completely not necessary. Who makes concessions during record profits? We all know now (looking forward) that given the billions returned to the shareholders, there was much more on the table and these additional concessions were not necessary. Looking ahead to C2015, management and some nameless, gutless cowards will work behind our backs to sell concessions to fund improvements to our PWA. The will tell you it is a great idea to reduce profit sharing and concede to pay banding. Where do they get these ideas? Directly from management. Why would a Delta pilot working under a bankruptcy contract at a company making record profits, record margins and record payouts to shareholders even conceive of trading concessions for improvements? Concessions should never be part of any dialogue for C2015. Challenge it wherever at rears it's ugly head. Everyone needs to do their part, everyone needs to lift. Call and write your reps. Tell them you support them and the negotiating committee 100%. That you applaud them for committing to a historic C2015 in True Headings 14-2. JF Now if you are saying you were sure it was going to happen then I wonder why your still here. I would have bought all the Delta stock I could on margin and be a retired multi millionaire now. |
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 1678310)
Wiggle, wiggle, squirm, squirm. Let's all remember the primary argument we started with:
Carl maintains that our contract was "cost neutral" to pilots.
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 1678310)
I showed how in order to be cost neutral with a 19.5% increase in cash compensation you needed to increase productivity by shrinking the pilot count by 1,795.
It would have been equally inaccurate if the airline had shrunk since C2012 and someone came along saying C2012 was cost negative to the company because of the reduction in required pilot head count. I think you would have been the first to respond reminding the poster that they weren't taking into account that the airline had shrunk. And you would have been right. You're just choosing to ignore that fact now because it unravels your thesis. Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1678782)
Untrue. Our executive management described the 2012 contract as "cost neutral." They didn't say "cost neutral to pilots" as you say above, and neither have I. In fact, I had a recent exchange with Denny Crane where I specifically said it couldn't be cost neutral to pilots because pilots don't pay the cost of their pay. The company bears that cost, so if it is "cost neutral" to anybody, it could only be the company...not pilots. I have not said what you and others keep alleging.
This is where your thesis goes awry Alfa. Your supposition is simply wrong. While increasing productivity would have been one way to do it, it's not the only way as you are trying to sell. Another way to make this cost neutral (to the company) is extract concessions from the pilots that don't affect head count. For example, adding a 7th day of short call, or changing the long call leash by an hour doesn't affect head count in any way. Yet those were costed out concessions accepted by both sides. That's one reason why your thesis simply isn't accurate. The other bigger reason is that it didn't take growth of the airline into account as I've previously shown. It would have been equally inaccurate if the airline had shrunk since C2012 and someone came along saying C2012 was cost negative to the company because of the reduction in required pilot head count. I think you would have been the first to respond reminding the poster that they weren't taking into account that the airline had shrunk. And you would have been right. You're just choosing to ignore that fact now because it unravels your thesis. Carl |
|
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 1678310)
Bottom line: the contract was not cost neutral, Carl can't even get close to showing it was cost neutral, he is trapped in his deceptive claims and now he wriggles and squirms to change the subject.
The question I've been struggling with is whether cost neutral/negative to the company equates to net value or net loss to the pilot group. The evidence is pointing me toward the fact that our negotiators brought us a 2012 contract where every gain was offset by a costed concession. The costing sheets exist. Management has them and our MEC administrators have them. Neither side so far seems interested in showing them. Carl |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1678694)
Objection, irrelevant. His vote carries the same weight as yours or mine. Also, PD has sworn off pastry, as have I and GZSG closed a recent email with let's be united for a historic c15.
I enjoy PDs rants wholeheartedly. (I also enjoy it when he goes off the deep end because the follow ups are so entertaining) It doesn't matter if he's new or not. He speaks the truth as he sees it. Why would anyone want him to do anything less? T, The DPA is done, over, kaput. Get over it. It is far more annoying to read your anti DPA belittling (donuts, pastry, whatever). You aren't the only dal pilot with a valid viewpoint, vote or position. But I think it very relevant if PD is new or not. He constantly whines about being harmed with our contract and all that. Well if he had none of the bennies of C2K he needs to STHU about it because it doesn't pertain to him. He cannot legitimately whine about something he never had. Unless you think that legitimate also in which I will start whining that I am not more senior. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:40 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands