Both, if we still had 800 copilots I would fly alot less. If we didn't have contract 2012 I would not have flown over guarantee the last three months

No I did not. Which only strengthens my argument that until you can provide some, your statement is nothing more than your opinion. I'm willing to accept that you've spoken with other Delta pilots that share your view, but that doesn't make your view the majority.

Still conjecture on your part. You're assuming that is the case.

Well, 63% of the pilot group felt those numbers were acceptable. If they didn't feel that way, then they should have voted NO.

Johnso, you're hiding behind the lack of data. You and I both know the minimum pay number on that survey was way higher than 4833. There were a host of different reasons why pilots voted in favor of that agreement. Quite a few said they voted for it, not because the pay was adequate, but because they saw it as the lessor of two evils. If everyone who thought 4833 was way too low had voted no, I submit that the number in favor would have been way lower than 62%. There's a reason why marketing and scare tactics work.

"4833 and another 33% reduction in PS will be another huge win in 2015"...said no Delta pilot ever. :(

4833 is compounded to around 19% raise in 2.5 or 3 years.

Majority of the Pilot group probably requested a 25-30% pay raise. My ASSumption realized through talking with pilots.
My hunch is that RA somehow knew this. It is a HUNCH only.

Most deals, in negotiation, will not fall through if the percentages are with in a realistic window. 19% more Money in the pocket now (C2012) is better than 3 years of haggling wishing for 25-30%.

I, on the other hand, would have loved the haggle. THe only thing is, we do not have the right hagglers.

TEN

Profit sharing was not reduced 33%. I am amazed there are still pilots who don't know what is in a 2 year old agreement. Only the portion under 2.5 billion had that reduction. The actual reduction this year will probably be around 10%.

I'm not hiding behind anything. I'm simply stating that without facts, your argument is nothing more than your opinion. As is mine. That's undeniable. I have NO idea what the minimum pay number on that survey was. Neither do you. We can guess all we'd like to, but that's all that it is. A guess. As for those who claim to have voted for it because it was the lessor of two evils, well IMO that's not an excuse. It's either acceptable as a whole. Or it's not. You don't think the pay is acceptable? Vote it down.

And you're OK with that?

How can we hold "our" "union" accountable if they aren't transparent? :confused:

I'm fine with it. If one isn't happy with the TA, then vote NO. Can we not hold our union accountable without the results of a contract survey?

Oh that's just great. You're fine with accepting bankruptcy as the new baseline and sustaining a 34% pay cut for 10 years and long after the financial crisis for our company has been over. At least you're in good company in the DALPA echo chamber.