Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
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.
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.
Agreed. Now, who cares?
What's your next crisis?
Carl
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 478
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.
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.
The truth is NOT as one does or does not see. Perspective and context is, NOT truth. He may truly believe what he types but that does not make it truth! Perception is NOT reality.
Carl
Sailingfun,
I think I finally see the disconnect here and it has to do with an example I gave earlier of guys who only want to talk about their gains in the stock market and never their losses. But to be accurate, gains have to be summed against losses to come up with an actual net gain/loss. I'm sure you'll agree.
Here's where you're going wrong from your numbers posted above: You didn't title it properly. The title of this row is actually: "Pilot wages/salary expense"...and although your figure of $1,678,000,000 is correct for 2012, the correct figure for 2013 is: $1,864,000,000 (source: airlinefinancials.com). But here's the real key: You using these numbers as proof that C2012 was a net gain of value to pilots is like the guy who only wants to talk about his stock market gains and not the losses. Nowhere in these numbers are the costs associated with profit share loss, ALV gain for reserves, extra on call day for reserves, sick leave policy, loss of summer month days, etc. These are all tangible C2012 losses that were costed out...yet those losses don't show up in your numbers above.
As I'm now saying for the third time, if you want to answer the question of whether C2012 was a net gain of value or a net loss of value to pilots, the costed value of our concessions have to be subtracted from the wage/salary/pay gains. I've asked alfaromeo or slowplay or any of the guys who were in the MEC administration at the time to show the line item costing that was accepted by both sides during negotiations. Then we can all add up the gains, subtract the losses and see if C2012 was a net gain or loss of value to pilots. Those documents exist. Like the question we had during the 117 debacle, it was answered by somebody (I think shiznit) by taking a picture of the actual document and posting it here.
Until then, I have to go with the evidence. The evidence is in management's multiple descriptions of C2012 as being "cost neutral" and going further to say that "the savings inherent in C2012 will further allow us to fund initiatives that will benefit other employee groups." These statements followed by management now saying that all employees (except pilots) are back to their pre-bankruptcy wages. I think we now know what the initiative was that management was saying would benefit other employee groups.
Carl
I think I finally see the disconnect here and it has to do with an example I gave earlier of guys who only want to talk about their gains in the stock market and never their losses. But to be accurate, gains have to be summed against losses to come up with an actual net gain/loss. I'm sure you'll agree.
Here's where you're going wrong from your numbers posted above: You didn't title it properly. The title of this row is actually: "Pilot wages/salary expense"...and although your figure of $1,678,000,000 is correct for 2012, the correct figure for 2013 is: $1,864,000,000 (source: airlinefinancials.com). But here's the real key: You using these numbers as proof that C2012 was a net gain of value to pilots is like the guy who only wants to talk about his stock market gains and not the losses. Nowhere in these numbers are the costs associated with profit share loss, ALV gain for reserves, extra on call day for reserves, sick leave policy, loss of summer month days, etc. These are all tangible C2012 losses that were costed out...yet those losses don't show up in your numbers above.
As I'm now saying for the third time, if you want to answer the question of whether C2012 was a net gain of value or a net loss of value to pilots, the costed value of our concessions have to be subtracted from the wage/salary/pay gains. I've asked alfaromeo or slowplay or any of the guys who were in the MEC administration at the time to show the line item costing that was accepted by both sides during negotiations. Then we can all add up the gains, subtract the losses and see if C2012 was a net gain or loss of value to pilots. Those documents exist. Like the question we had during the 117 debacle, it was answered by somebody (I think shiznit) by taking a picture of the actual document and posting it here.
Until then, I have to go with the evidence. The evidence is in management's multiple descriptions of C2012 as being "cost neutral" and going further to say that "the savings inherent in C2012 will further allow us to fund initiatives that will benefit other employee groups." These statements followed by management now saying that all employees (except pilots) are back to their pre-bankruptcy wages. I think we now know what the initiative was that management was saying would benefit other employee groups.
Carl
Carl
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,993
That is an APR Thrust demo. It double's the available thrust. Douglas jets have done that to me before. I see the FO is trying to whack it with a stick. We've not flight tested that technique, but in typical Douglas fashion, I see he is performing his flight test with passengers on board. Good on 'em.
Just remain vigilant for the drips on the walk around. Particularly if APR Thrusting was evident.
Now I fly a 737. We put these on the back of the engines to avoid an APR thrust.
Southwest does not have, or has not figured out how to use these thrust shields. That is why they taxi so fast. They fear a MD-88 sneaking up on them from behind.
Just remain vigilant for the drips on the walk around. Particularly if APR Thrusting was evident.
Now I fly a 737. We put these on the back of the engines to avoid an APR thrust.
Southwest does not have, or has not figured out how to use these thrust shields. That is why they taxi so fast. They fear a MD-88 sneaking up on them from behind.
Last edited by 80ktsClamp; 07-06-2014 at 08:14 PM. Reason: pic
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 11,993
Nice for you to admit it was propaganda.
It's completely irrelevant. His vote counts the same as yours and mine. Same for his opinions.
PD can defend himself, but I don't remember that as ever being his complaint. I remember his complaints mainly as the disconnect between what DALPA says, and what DALPA does. Regardless, if he's been here longer than 24 months and did feel harmed by C2012, he's got every right to say so. Just like you have every right to state your happiness of it.
See above.
Carl
It's completely irrelevant. His vote counts the same as yours and mine. Same for his opinions.
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post