Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1896479)

Boog was right here Mantooth. C2012 was not the genesis of the growth we're seeing. That was decided by management based on their study of the marketplace.

If the company had decided to shrink the airline and furlough as a result of the marketplace realities, it would have been disingenuous to blame C2012 for those job losses. It's just as disingenuous for you to claim that C2012 was the reason that we've seen job growth now.

With regard to C2012 and jobs, there is no question that C2012 had job LOSSES baked into it. Not even the MEC disagrees with that. What saved us is that the market (and Delta management's reaction to it) decided that growing the airline would be best.

Carl

Originally Posted by D Mantooth (Post 1896486)

You're welcome.

IF anything in Section One changes, it won't be due to the grievance settlement. That settlement must stand alone, and cannot affect the PWA.

I have no idea if Section One in the TA includes any changes. Nor am I making any predictions. I'm simply answering the question posed. If there are changes to the PWA, they cannot be done by the MEC Chairman in the settlement process.

To illustrate that, if the TA fails, Section One will remain as is. The JV settlement will not change it.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1896499)

Just to be clear, if this grievance settlement does NOT include an agreement to get back above the JV minimum and a timeline to do so, that represents a permanent reset of our scope. If the company decides to stay in violation again, we grieve it again and they pay us again. That's the new legal precedent. The only way that's not the case is if this grievance settlement includes a remedy and timeline. If there was, the MEC administration would have said so. They didn't. That's why I'm quite certain there is no such remedy or timeline.

We shall see.

Carl

Originally Posted by D Mantooth (Post 1896491)

So his predictions came to fruition?

We have less (sic) DAL pilots?
We stagnated?
Our W2s didn't grow?

How was he right?

Good Lord, if we're not going to be honest with each other here, why are we even bothering to have a conversation?

Originally Posted by D Mantooth (Post 1896512)

I understand your position, I just disagree with your premise. Absent a vote by the MEC or a new PWA, section one remains intact.

I do understand your point, though.

It is my hope that the TA contains stronger language re: JVs.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1896513)

He was making predictions based on C2012...not the economies of the future. He was wrong about economic predictions but right about C2012's impact on jobs. If Delta decided to stagnate, there would have been job losses resulting from C2012 and boog would have predicted correctly. If Delta had decided to shrink the airline, then it would have been unfair to blame the shrinkage job losses on C2012...only the job losses resulting from our concessions in C2012.

I understand your need to twist people's predictions, but if Delta had shrunk the airline, you'd be pounding the table right now saying you can't blame that on C2012. And you'd be right.

Carl

Originally Posted by D Mantooth (Post 1896444)

Almost certainly the answer is NO. The grievance settlement has NO EFFECT on the PWA. Contract language could not be involved or the MEC chairman would not have had the power to settle the grievance. The MEC chairman cannot unilaterally change the contract.

Also, as long as we're pointing out inaccuracies, the original JV balance wasn't 52%. It was 50% when it was just AF and DL. Then 52% with AF and KLM. Then 50% when Alitalia was added.

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1896528)

But 50% was defined as 48.5%. After 4 years they couldn't even honor the low end.

Originally Posted by D Mantooth (Post 1896544)

True.

Although, to be fair, they weren't even at 50% when they signed the agreement (if my memory serves). They agreed to that level based on overly-optimistic predictions. It cost them $30,000,000.

I don't know the costing numbers, so I won't comment yet on whether that penalty was appropriate.

Originally Posted by qball (Post 1896557)

That's too bad for them. They also gambled on fuel hedging and lost much more than that. Did they get to go back to the hedge fund and tell them they are not going to pay up? The bottom line is they AGREED to a contract and then failed to honor that. Now we need language in this contract that does not allow them to continue to do that.