Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1681106)

All done in good faith bargaining.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1680530)

If you want to have a rational conversation then let's stay rational. You try to point out that concessions are always 1 for 1 with gains.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1680530)

This goes back to your failed argument that C2012 was like that.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1680530)

Instead, it was shown that the gains in C2012 were not even close to offset by the concessions offered.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1680530)

The gains dwarfed the concessions by a very large amount.

Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1680530)

That is the concept I am talking about. You can have concessions in a contract that are dwarfed by your gains. That is positive, good faith bargaining.

Originally Posted by Scoop (Post 1681108)

Guys,

The RCC survey window is open - very low participation so far. This is a good opportunity to give your input on DAL rotations.

On a separate but related issue the preliminary Nov trips (5:30 ADG effective) show a bunch of the 3 day red-eyes going out as now, but paying 15:45. :D Not sure how long they will remain this way, but trips will probably slowly evolve to reduce credit.


Other 2 and 3 day trips are being increased to 4 day trips to minimize credit.

Scoop

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver (Post 1680872)

Not looking for sympathy.... or to be lectured by a condescending @sshole. :rolleyes:

I think I understand pretty well where you're coming from. You see bankruptcy as a reset for our profession. You have a fairly high level of expertise in analyzing corporate financials. You've even done some consulting. Just enough stuff so that you tend to see things from the perspective of a CFO... a bean counter.

In our case, you apparently have a lot more concern for the cost side of the business equation than you do for the value of a highly trained, highly experienced, sharp individual in the cockpit. That kind of lack of perspective and poor judgment is one of the reasons why CFO's don't always make the best CEO's. Bean counters are great at what they do... crunching numbers... an important part of the equation. Just not the WHOLE equation.

As for your "analysis" of our concessions... well... it's flawed. This isn't 2007. It's 2014. You are conveniently leaving out 6 years (2008-2014). Try including the difference between our pay in those years and what our pay would be inflation adjusted from 2004. Still think we aren't at a significant deficit? Oh that's right... you view bankruptcy as a reset. You don't think pilots can or should be paid that much in the first place. Keeping costs low is the most important priority. You're a bean counter first and foremost. And the really scary part? You're a bean counter that could be helping to determine our strategic plan for C2015! :eek:

And just to bring it back to the "real world"... none of the above diminishes the one thing on which you and I agree: There are much worse things in life that can happen than losing money.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1681110)

I don't think anybody disagrees with that. It does however seem that some on here believe that good faith only applies to one side. Not trying to start that argument, and not trying to advocate any "concessions", but good faith is not delivering an ultimatum that must be accepted because of historical events

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver (Post 1681131)

Who said anything about ultimatums?

What you do is you put together your best case for restoring our pay. There are a lot of good, rational arguments IN FAVOR of this. "Historical events" are relevant but not by any means the only aspect of the argument. This industry has been restructured in a way that should permit better, more consistent profitability going forward. Our company is making literally BILLIONS (with a "B") in profits. Pilot costs are relatively small in the grand scheme of things. Our company CAN afford to restore our pay. In fact, when you look at what is happening to our profession (in terms of being able to attract enough quality newcomers), it could be argued that our company can't afford NOT to restore our pay.

Do you think DALPA (with guys like Alfa driving things behind the scenes) is making these kinds of arguments? Nope. Not even close. All you have to do is look at their words here. That tells you everything you need to know. If they're arguing against it here, you can bet they aren't arguing FOR it with management.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 1681135)

You make a lot of logical assumptions in this post.

Originally Posted by TheManager (Post 1680968)

Wow. From of all people you Alfa? Really!?! Simply astounding to me with all things considered.

In Los Angeles, there was a fantastic gentleman and aviator who served us all as a check airman. Great pilot and an even better teacher.

I had the pleasure of flying with him on the 727 and the 767. Glad I did. It was an honor.

During the throes of bankruptcy, he sadly committed suicide. A wife and kids lost a husband, best friend, and father. Forever.

It was said by those with intimate knowledge of the details that the financial strain of bankruptcy played a major role in this tragedy.

I don't think he probably saw things as "losing a little money" as you say, particularly since he was close to retirement.


It might be best to Shut the Phuque Up on this, Alfa. It's up to you, but knowing your ego, I'm not betting on it.

Originally Posted by Purple Drank (Post 1680990)

Alfa...why exactly do you post here? What are you trying to accomplish?
I'd be happy to answer the question myself, but for now I'm trying to grasp your motivation.

Are you here to help the line pilot?