Yes, thank you Lee Moak. :rolleyes:

A brilliant CEO just doesn't shoot from the hip with this kind of language. He obviously has solid reasoning to feel this confident. What does he know about DALPA's mindset/commitment going forward that we (line pilots) don't? Between expectation management/dampening and this kind of talk I'm fully prepared to be underwhelmed and told "This is best that we can get; it's humanely impossible to do better. Take it now; TVM; RA's too smart to give in if we turn it down and we'll only get less if we do."

Talk about double speak. The sentence could mean the expectations of wall street, employees, pilots, you or me. It's hard to determine exactly who is the audience. Think like a lawyer.

If you are Wall Street, it would mean an additional restructuring to remove compensation from employees.

If you are a pilot, it could mean that Richard acknowledges the pilot group has valid expectations of improvements.

Think like a lawyer. I tend to think it means nothing and he isn't giving his position away to anyone. He's just bullshxting everyone listening.

Call all 3 of your LEC Reps. right now, and tell them any reductions to our profit sharing in C2015 are also "off the table"! And if Richard wants labor risk to remain off the table, he'd better be ready to write a much bigger check than that 4-8-3-3!

I find it hard to believe RA would show his hand and expose the leverage we have.

Sailingfun,

That is what I thought also. It reads to me like an average (which would rely on cumulative data). But, I am told it is a snapshot.

Frankly, the language (which confused every Rep) needs improvement. I like George's idea about a double penalty. Even if we do sell scope, such a provision increases it's value by 100%. Of course, it is my hope that management would just honor the commitments it makes in good faith. (perhaps a penalty "make up flying" adjustment might incentivize them to be fair for a change)

How would management respond if I call in and said, "you know that crappy 11 hour three day that you created by carving out the Duty In is not convenient for me, so I am just not going to fly it" ?

Point being; if management expects us to honor the contract, it should act in good faith also.

If I were flying with my favorite ALPA-can-do-no-wrong captain and mentioned the leverage we have his response would be, "What leverage do we have? We have to take he gives us. Small bites."

Yes, because that is clearly the only instance in which contract violations have occurred. Stop being disingenuous Carl.

Hahaha, ALPA puts a positive spin on what's going on at Endeavor, ENDEAVOR!

Idea only.

Being that it is unlikely we will be able to significantly modify our JV agreements with the company during C15k and,

Being that they have showed no intention of moving to rebalance over the last 3-4 years, basically during the life of the JV itself, and

Being that RA touted the JV alliances yesterday as being able to operate as a single airline with the European AFKLM employees and the significant benefits of that to analysts,


Then how about a penalty in the form of a fine. For every seat flown out of balance, an amount of money is collected.

Warning and disclaimer. I have no actually non compliance numbers, bellow is a wag.

If for an example the imbalance was let's say 5000 seats a day, at $20 per seat, then $100,000 collected per day. That equates to $36,500,000 per year. Divided equally among 12k pilots for ease of illustration, it comes to $3,041.66 Personally, don't believe that the per pilot figure is penalty enough for willfully violating our contract to enhance Deltas bottom line and performance driven metrics.

Again, disclaimer. Raw idea to provoke debate. It is better to have the JVs in balance and have the jobs and upgrades. Perhaps fining a significant amount will be painful enough to motivate management to stick to the balances.