![]() |
|
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1689351)
Who has more to gain (or lose) financially with squandered opportunities at the negotiating table: you, with 12 years; or those of us with decades left?
I'd say the junior guys have a lot at stake, regardless of whether or not you think we rate our own opinions. But by all means, continue to shout down and squelch anyone who disagrees with you (how did that work over in the Allegiant thread?) It's a method more befitting a leftist than a self-proclaimed libertarian. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1689340)
True and we have a good Company contribution.
Individual circumstances vary, but I would suggest most be very frugal, save and invest wisely. T, most are starting at an older age and did not save a lot while at a regional carrier. It takes a lot more effort to save the first million than than does the second. After Delta's contribution I am still sticking a large percentage away into Roth (s), 429 plans and other deals. My ride has a half million or so miles on it & the wife's car is over 150k. The days of frivolous spending on non producing assets is mostly over for what is left of the US middle class. Hope nobody thinks I am participating in the "who got screwed the worst" debate around here. It is a dumb discussion. I am looking towards what we need to do for our profession going forward. Although if Buzz calls me out again I will send 20 bucks to Hillary ' s Presidential Campaign just to spite him. |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1689374)
. Sorry if that doesn't fit your paradigm of the azzhole senior guys,
I did not knock senior guys. I called you for minimizing the stake junior guys have over their careers here, and for belittling their willingness to share (and advocate for) their opinions. Are you going to tell us you're the only one "entitled" to a valid opinion? :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1689387)
Straw man. (You're getting good at that!) Kindly don't inject drama where none exists.
I did not knock senior guys in my post. Only went after you for minimizing the stake junior guys have over their careers here, and for belittling their willingness to share (and advocate for) their opinions--which are every bit as valid as yours. |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1689391)
If it was so onerous and insulting, why did you come here? When I came here there was a B scale. I knew it when I came to work here, so complaining about it was disingenuous.
Given the company's profitability, you're damn right the "pay and bennies" are "onerous and insulting." And that won't change until we get rid of the complacent handholding you and the DALPA regulars advocate. The landscape has changed. You are anchored to an outdated paradigm. In this environment, a "bankruptcy plus" contract is simply unfathomable. You are too risk averse to realize how much we stand to gain if we have the grapes to fight for it. |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1689391)
When I came here there was a B scale. I knew it when I came to work here, so complaining about it was disingenuous. Wanting to get rid of it however was a fair complaint. But it cost me nothing when I came to work here. It was what it was. And we got rid of it for YOU.
How do you justify at least implying that you think something like restoration is the right objective yet you argue against the "reasonableness" of doing what it takes to achieve it? Maybe I've been misreading you all this time. Can you clear it up for me? |
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1689421)
Now we're getting somewhere.
Given the company's profitability, you're damn right the "pay and bennies" are "onerous and insulting." And that won't change until we get rid of the complacent handholding you and the DALPA regulars advocate. The landscape has changed. You are anchored to an outdated paradigm. In this environment, a "bankruptcy plus" contract is simply unfathomable. You are too risk averse to realize how much we stand to gain if we have the grapes to fight for it. |
Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver
(Post 1689424)
I'm confused, T. You write something like the above and it makes it sound like you'd be all for restoration of our pay. Yet, in effect, you constantly argue against it. You say you want more, but are apparently unwilling to advocate that our representation set an objective that would be highly controversial with our management. Restoring our pay is going to take some very aggressive, significant improvement. That's just a mathematical fact. And I can guarantee you our management will fight extremely hard against anything of the sort. They feel like they slayed that dragon a long time ago... and given DALPA's actions and tone over the past decade have every reason to believe it's put to bed for good.
How do you justify at least implying that you think something like restoration is the right objective yet you argue against the "reasonableness" of doing what it takes to achieve it? Maybe I've been misreading you all this time. Can you clear it up for me? "Restoration" will not happen in one fell swoop. It's ridiculous to believe that it will. You want 34% or something like that. It would be great, but it is not remotely reasonable (standing by for the expectations management crap). It is reality. We are not going to get a contract that will deliver that kind of pay increase before somebody else closes the gap. It is not only bad business (for Delta) it is stupid. And then there's TVM. PD wants to wait. He ignores the magic of compounding. He will throw you and me under the bus. (and himself also, but he can't do math, so he doesn't realize it) You are a smart guy when it comes to investing, and it totally surprises me that you seem willing to discount it also, but apparently the victory of punching management is more valuable to you. Reasonableness is what will get us our money. How to define that is the crux of the problem. But a 34% pay increase on day is not "reasonable" by any rational definition, I do not care how much the company is making. And you know that I am right on that. Fire away. |
Originally Posted by DeltaNet
Delta employees reminded about Insider Trading Policy
July 22, 2014 All employees of Delta and its subsidiaries are reminded that they may not legally trade in the airline’s stock or other securities if they possess material information about the company that has not been disclosed to the public. Material information can include historical or financial results, significant transactions, entry or termination of significant contracts, equity or debt offerings or other information that might affect an investor’s view of the value of Delta’s securities. At least we will have something to talk about tomorrow and more whining about how we aren't paid enough. (and hell, with my damned coverage award ... I'm not paid enough for this crap) *1.15 a share is above the consensus of $1.03, the whisper of $1.06 and the extra nine cents was pulled from my neigher regions. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1689045)
Simple math; addition and compound interest.
I would not use the word "sacrifice" but if you chart out a career's earnings, as many of us did, the losses and accumulated losses are larger the earlier in one's career that total earnings were reduced. Further, those who held a percentage obviously have more than those who did not. Now as to how you and Buzz "feel" ... I dunno. Certainly our new hires will have opinions about scope, but they were off property when those changes were made. In as much as they have votes, their opinions matter as much as yours or mine. If you want to say you have a greater sense of entitlement, OK. I got no problem with your feelings, but simple math still adds up the same. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:30 AM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands