Where did you see a "stated and clearly defined objective" of no reduction in profit sharing? I was not aware any goals had been set yet. The survey is still open, so the MEC has not analyzed the results to know where the pilots stand on the issues. I've met pilots who want more and pilots who want less (not as many these days) but there are pilots on both sides of that issue

So you'd take the 3% fixed on top of all other TA'd sections and pay rate increases instead of 5% inW-2's worth of PS back to the MEC. ok.

I think I'd lean toward the added PS.

Yep, and I understand and totally agree with how they must first publish an opening for US to take, before assigning it to new hires. There is really no downside to them publishing 25 openings in LAX or SLC and no one takes them--at least it ENSURES no one flows in above me heh! And once they've reached the "bottom of the list" as they have with these openings, I"m sure it's easier to just publish 20 or 30 and fill them as new hires come available.

It does get our hopes up! We think, "Well I may not be moving up, but with guys moving in below me and the category increasing, it will effectively move me up."

Unfortunately, despite all these unfilled openings, and the expectation that they will be filled with new hires... that's actually not happening. In fact, in Nov my category has 4 less people in it than it's had for the last few years! I know that "someday they'll add new hires below me, and someone above me will retire", it just gets more difficult to wait for it to actually happen over the last 3 years with all the harbingers of growth and GoodTimes, and not see it!

Silver lining: I didn't move down!! That makes 2 AEs in a row, I'm gonna say we've hit bottom, upwards soon...

You gave him the reality of the situation, did you? And you're surprised he didn't bother to answer?

You already have the reality of the situation. Why are you bothering with asking questions of such feeble men, who lack the reality of the situation?

Okay, good point on the semantics of what I wrote. Perhaps I should have phrased the above slightly differently. I reminded him of the reality of the situation and asked him to reconcile it with his statement about the "greatest contract in airline history." Since he blew off my email, I'm assuming he doesn't have a good answer and that his definition of "greatest contract in airline history" somehow doesn't include buying power from our compensation that at least equals what we had throughout most of the 1980's, 1990's, and early 2000's.

Shiz,

Your question was a "fantasy" in what would *I* do if I was a DALPA negotiator. In this "fantasy" the union would have already put out clearly defined (and published) goals and they would have published the survey results to solidify their stance.

It was just a fantasy because it isn't happening. And won't happen.

For me, NO to a reduction in profit sharing and YES to increases in pay and QOL.

You'd say no to a 50% increase in pay and a complete reduction of P/S?

Isn't this a straw man? I bet he is basing his hypothetical no on 4/8/3/3....

Will DAL really get 50%?

Wait so it was Obama that invaded Iraq? :eek::rolleyes:

Ok. Just wondering where your priorities would be when it came to a choice at the end. If you had to make a decision for 12,000 other pilots also would you still make that choice?

In the "fantasy" it's good you aren't in a leadership role, because I don't want our survey data available to the company to use against us. However that's a different issue altogether.

In case no one has ever told you, the survey results aren't a "want or else" list. The survey is a way to determine "where" the pilots want improvements, not "how much". The Union (any union) is going to attempt to obtain as much as possible. The survey helps the NC make sure it gets increased value put into the proper areas of the PWA. I'll wager that what was acceptable to 2/3rds of Delta pilots in 2012 is not the same as what will be acceptable in 2015. It will take a lot more for most, including me.

Give it a month or two...