I don't think this is proper English. Anyway the mod says I'm not allowed to make fun of you so I won't be responding to you anymore. Good day.

 

Darn whippersnappers!

 

9E was with Northwest Airlines at the time. Also, a lot of us went through bankruptcy to provide a better price to Delta.

 

How many 9E pilots do you think bump paying pax in your current positive space commute program? And how much of an increase to my profit sharing do you think will result from the new non-rev rule priority change?

 

It will probably affect the ATL market the most, but we do have tons of commuters in NYC as well. Just think, one full flight from MEM-ATL with 5 commuting pilots that must get on. That's a lot of dough. Plus inconveniencing the passengers could hurt the brand. Just look at United's example, one incident cost them millions and was a huge PR disaster. This would prevent a lot of those instances from occurring, but at the expense of retirees.

Then again, the retirees would be bumped first by the commuter policy anyway...

 

You keep using hypotheticals and what ifs so I'll do the same. I'll bet if you used the actual numbers we'd find out that bumping pax doesn't happen much at all (despite what might have happened at UAL) and that the result to our passenger experience and financial performance is next to nothing in the grand scheme of things.

On the other hand, one could prove pretty easily that you wouldn't be in the position you are right now at an airline job if it weren't for those retirees about to get screwed.

 

Where did I say Endeavor.

But either way doesn't matter anybody that works at the commuter should go behind our retirees.

 

Feel free to enlighten us with the actual numbers then... I've given you a recent documented example and a common sense hypothetical. Also, you know how much Delta protects their brand. It is worth something to them, even if it is not for you. If you are so sure of the effects being minuscule, feel free to post them. Otherwise, you are in no position to talk in such a way.

I don't understand the purpose of your second paragraph. I was alluding that retirees may not actually be affected too much by this change, because the commuter clause already in place would have them bumped first anyway if it came down to it. If you think I am out to hurt retirees, you are mistaken. I have no power to change management's policy whatsoever. I am only discussing the pros and cons.

 

This right here.

Pass priorities are always an emotional topic but this isn't something that is in our contract. Its easy to forget that Mr. "Retention Bonus" himself was the one who gave (or signed off on at least) the bulk of the current pass benefit structure we enjoy today, and around the same time as that came unlimited jumpseats. Not to give him too much credit, as pass bennies and jumpseat privileges were on an upward trajectory industry wide anyway of course.

If I had to guess the reason for the recent change, which by all accounts appears to have taken all sides by surprise, I'd wager to say the HMFBIC's (head master finance beancounters in charge) did it to facilitate more pilots getting to work in a no cost (to them) kind of way. Fewer missed trips, fewer commuter clause invocations (I assume they have one), etc.

Is the change right or wrong? Is it a courageous statement of equality and justice for 9E, or is it a stinging rebuke of a lifetime of dedication and service for DL retirees? IMO the real answer is neither, because neither group "owns" the benefit contractually. Things have been so good for so long that no one has felt the need to spend any "negotiating capital" on it, other than possibly commuter clauses. Its been mostly (almost completely) left to the mercies of management, and so they've made this one small change to grease the gears a little at their largest and WO regional.

It wasn't personal, it was just business.

 

Let's get something straight - you are the one making some grandiose claims about protecting the brand and increasing our profit sharing, so the burden of proof is on you. And one UAL event to prove your point? You got me there. I'll just defer to your wisdom and wait for the big bump in my profit sharing check next year thanks to your new non-rev bennies. Because that's what this is really about, you are watering at the mouth over the increase in leisure travel non-rev status, not the improvement to the DL brand or financial performance. You my friend, are not fooling anyone. But do carry on with your words of wisdom about improving my profit sharing and DL brand integrity with your nov-rev improvement.