Search

Notices

Details on Delta TA

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-03-2014 | 05:47 AM
  #1321  
tsquare's Avatar
No longer cares
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
Default

Originally Posted by gzsg

If we reduce profit sharing it is game over. C2015 will be a repeat of C2012 and completely cost neutral.

What does that mean? And please explain how being cost neutral is a bad thing.
Reply
Old 09-03-2014 | 05:48 AM
  #1322  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,816
Likes: 5
From: retired 767(dl)
Default

Originally Posted by Alan Shore
Talk amongst yourselves.

I'll give you a topic. Rhode Island -- it's neither a road nor an island.

Discuss...
Hmmm... If they are so close together, why do they call them apartments?
Reply
Old 09-03-2014 | 05:51 AM
  #1323  
Carl Spackler's Avatar
Back on TDY
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Default

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Shouldn't it have tried to do just that Alan? Shouldn't it have (at a minimum) provided us with a truly fair and balanced look?...

...This is just one example that shows we didn't get that. And the survey opens tomorrow. Why would my union do this Alan?

Originally Posted by Alan Shore
It seems to me that you're asking for the comparison to show the various bidding systems that carriers have, along with the nuances of each...
No, I'm asking for at least an accurate comparison in all contract sections. When the bidding systems intertwine to make the benefit in question better or worse, the comparison should so state. Our contract comparison didn't do that. Instead it simply showed us at 3:15 per day, SWA at 3:15 per day and FDX at 6:00 per day. Very, very misleading...and misleading in a way to favor management's negotiating position.

Originally Posted by Alan Shore
...I'm having trouble imagining how you provide a full look at each on a page or two of a comparison.
With regard to vacation, all it would have taken is an asterisk and footnote saying: "due to the non-PBS bidding system at SWA/FDX, their vacation credit can produce many more days off than our vacation system at Delta." Quick easy and accurate. But DALPA didn't do that. Instead we have a contract comparison that is misleading in favor of management's position, and it is that misleading document that DALPA wants us to use to fill out our surveys.

Carl
Reply
Old 09-03-2014 | 06:31 AM
  #1324  
DAL 88 Driver's Avatar
At home on the maddog!
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,874
Likes: 0
From: Retired (mandatory age 65)
Default

Originally Posted by tsquare
And please explain how being cost neutral is a bad thing.
You just said that to make my head explode, right?

Did you forget we took a 42% pay cut, lost our pension, and had thousands of our jobs outsourced resulting in a full decade of stagnation... and today our rates are STILL 34% below the buying power we had before the pay cuts? Of course you didn't! Now, explain to me how being cost neutral is a good thing.
Reply
Old 09-03-2014 | 06:36 AM
  #1325  
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by tsquare
What does that mean? And please explain how being cost neutral is a bad thing.
I cannot find the words to respond to a post like that.
Reply
Old 09-03-2014 | 06:40 AM
  #1326  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,619
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
That dude is a real people person ain't he.



Easy, and this is at least the tenth time I've told you this. They didn't give us $1 billion. You guys have made that number up out of whole cloth by adding gains without accounting for losses. Management has consistently described our contract as "cost neutral." But then they went further by stating: "The additional savings realized from the pilot's contract will allow us to fund initiatives for the benefit of other Delta employees." Then they followed through by recently announcing that all employees at Delta have been returned to their pre-bankruptcy wages...except the pilots.

There's no question that our contract cost the company nothing when it's costs are balanced against its savings. No question. But there is mounting evidence that shows it may have been close to benefit neutral to us when it's increased wage rates are balanced against its concessions.


Carl
You manage to string together a bunch of disconnected thoughts and attempt to make it some coherent argument. Here is how you make a contract that increases cash compensation by 19.5% cost neutral.



Please show me how we lost 1,795 pilots or will lose 1,795 pilots by 2015. Just to make your argument harder:



That is what real analysis looks like. Let's see your numbers.
Reply
Old 09-03-2014 | 06:43 AM
  #1327  
tsquare's Avatar
No longer cares
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
Default

Originally Posted by gzsg
I cannot find the words to respond to a post like that.
Then you should just admit that your post is just your typical turd throwing. "Cost neutral" has become some kind of flag you and Carl like to wave that means nothing and is just a way to try and get the high emotion/low information people to buy into your propaganda. Too bad, because I think you are a smart guy yet you hold onto that idiotic tactic.

And what is "game over"?
Reply
Old 09-03-2014 | 06:44 AM
  #1328  
Carl Spackler's Avatar
Back on TDY
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Default

Originally Posted by tsquare
What does that mean? And please explain how being cost neutral is a bad thing.
Originally Posted by gzsg
I cannot find the words to respond to a post like that.
I cannot find the words either. But did find a picture:





Carl
Reply
Old 09-03-2014 | 06:45 AM
  #1329  
Moderator
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,088
Likes: 0
From: B757/767
Default

Originally Posted by tsquare
Then you should just admit that your post is just your typical turd throwing. "Cost neutral" has become some kind of flag you and Carl like to wave that means nothing and is just a way to try and get the high emotion/low information people to buy into your propaganda. Too bad, because I think you are a smart guy yet you hold onto that tactic.
C2012 was "cost neutral" just like the 737-900ER order was "capacity neutral."
Reply
Old 09-03-2014 | 06:46 AM
  #1330  
tsquare's Avatar
No longer cares
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,109
Likes: 0
From: 767er Captain
Default

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver
You just said that to make my head explode, right?

Did you forget we took a 42% pay cut, lost our pension, and had thousands of our jobs outsourced resulting in a full decade of stagnation... and today our rates are STILL 34% below the buying power we had before the pay cuts? Of course you didn't! Now, explain to me how being cost neutral is a good thing.
Everything you just mentioned has nothing to do with the phrase "cost neutral". Keep saying that it does. It is nonsense and you know it.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Kilroy
ExpressJet
10796
01-11-2016 06:49 AM
FastDEW
Major
201
09-03-2011 06:42 AM
Quagmire
Major
253
04-16-2011 06:19 AM
ksatflyer
Hangar Talk
10
08-20-2008 09:14 PM
INAV8OR
Mergers and Acquisitions
66
05-15-2008 04:37 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices