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.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1678790)

There is absolutely no doubt that the contract was cost neutral to the company. No question.

Originally Posted by gzsg (Post 1678564)

The day after the TA for C2012 Delta VP Mike Campbell stated it was cost neutral.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1678582)

Except he never said that. He said the fleet changes combined with profit sharing and productivity changes would cover the cost.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1678582)

The vast majority of that was expected to be covered by the increased revenue from the fleet changes.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1678582)

Mike Cambell himself agreed with the costing on the contract as the companies main negotiator.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1678582)

How do you explain the fact the companies pilot costs have gone up almost exactly the amounts predicted in DALPA's and the company's costing. Are they forging their quarterly and annual reports to match that costing?

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.

Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1678728)

Cost neutral in what regard? Overall Delta costs? Or PWA costs? Can you prove that he specifically meant that the current PWA cost the exact same or less than the previous PWA?

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1678783)

Carl, why are the pilot costs on track to exceed the 400 million a year that both the company and DALPA costed everything out at?

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1677915)

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

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1678784)

Caption Contest

http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps113c4309.png

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1678784)

Caption Contest

http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps113c4309.png

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1678838)

"You won't believe what happened on our Elephant Porn filming expedition."

Carl

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1678800)

Fair enough. I'll stop with the anti-dount propaganda.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1678800)

But I think it very relevant if PD is new or not.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1678800)

He constantly whines about being harmed with our contract and all that.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1678800)

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.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1678835)

They're not. I explained where you went wrong in this post:



You still haven't responded.

Carl