That would be poor math considering NWA had a 5 hour higher guarantee.

Well, you try to change the subject. First, I agree we all are Delta pilots now so whatever pay rate increases we got all went to Delta pilots. If some got a little more than others it doesn't matter which airline they used to work for 3 years ago. I am not sure how you can ignore that there was money put into Delta pilots pockets and it averaged 27.5%. Other than the two small fenced categories there are pilots from all pre merger airlines in every category. We are all mutts now.

But let's get back to the basic question, which is: which pilot groups are playing tackle football now and what have they achieved that is better than us. Certainly if your tactics are superior it should be easy to point that out and give me some examples, right?

Show your math.

For someone who hasn't been here very long, this is a very astute post. Nice job.

Carl

Talk about changing the subject. :rolleyes: I said nothing about tactics. I challenged you on your assertion that we've had a 27.5% restoration of our pre-BK (pre-pay cut) standard of living at Delta. Sorry, but that just doesn't fly. However, this flag does:

http://www.zapadroid.com/assets/imag...5-39379969.jpg

Alright, I've been up since 3:25 (CST) this morning. Time to go to bed. I see Carl is here now. I'll leave it in your capable hands, Carl! You have the aircraft.... err, I mean forum. :D

So WRT us, does this mean we will face more or less pressure to ship them some charity jobs program (i.e. more POS 380's to the US, etc).

Observations about today's numbers
 

A friend wrote to ask about our 8K filing and what it means for scope. His point was Delta reported 21% of it's revenues from "Contract Carrier Arrangements" totalling $6.4 Billion on expenses of roughly $5.5 Billion; meaning a little more than $900 million of our operating profit was the result of outsourced RJ flying.

If so, that challenges the notion that we're losing money on RJ flying and begs the question why our management sees this as somehow ancillary to our "real airline" flying.

Management will say their strategy of divesting flying is working. I'd ask our management, "How much more would we make if we were not paying extra shareholders, parasitic management, dispatch and maintenance organizations? How much more would we make if we kept our contractor's profits in house?" And, I want to ask them, "Just what is our core business ... yeah ... well then why do you outsource it to someone you deem operationally inferior?"

For ALPA, I would like to ask "How does it promote job security to outsource the most profitable component of our operation?"

This highlights the cost to "take it back" and suggests there really is a strong economic push to rationalize capacity between the 76 seat line and what is currently offered at mainline.

Management would be smart to bring this flying in house. It is core to our business. ALPA would be smart to DEMAND this flying be brought in house in the interest of job security.

But, I fear both will see the profits made by outsourced flying and say ... "good." The problem with that notion is that if what we have is "good" then more is "better." More is a 717, or C Series.

Not according to the guys I talked to. They said it matter of factly. I asked them for clarification a couple times. But, if you say so....

I feel much better now that you've clarified "significant". Is this like the MEC talking about "significant" contract improvements in our next contract? Or like the MEC stating that their policy of constructive engagement has led to "significant" improvements in our current contract?

This is a very significant post from you acl.

Carl