|
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 1719396)
I'm sure they are. Too bad you only release the ones you want to release.
I do understand that, but why then did you release the $1.012 billion figure that you posted below? In law, we call that "opening the door" and if this was court I could compel you to release the costing sheets that you helped develop. But this isn't court and you're allowed to release only the numbers you want. If you're trying to show honesty and transparency, this is not the way to do so. Then show us. Carl The $1 billion number was released as soon as C2012 was sent to the membership. Using the slightly more exact number doesn't change anything other than to try to demonstrate that $1 billion wasn't some made up number. No doors were opened counselor. As I said before, no matter what I release you will claim it is rigged, so why should I respond to your bullying. |
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 1719416)
I really don't care how Delta finds the money to pay for that or how they characterize that to their shareholders.
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 1719416)
If Delta can raise ticket fees by $100 a passenger and then give half of that to me for a gigantic raise, I don't really care that they make positive gains on the deal. I just want more money, the source is immaterial to me.
They invented $25 bag fees out of thin air and have no problem collecting them. They're running a multi-billion dollar corporation, and running it so well they're making literally billions in profits. I think they're talented enough to find a way to net $3 to $4 more per passenger in order to stop paying the pilots as if the company was on the verge of bankruptcy. You're stuck in the past, Alfa. Lost in the spreadsheets with no real sense of what's right and of the real value this pilot group brings to the table. |
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 1718729)
The facts are that we got a 19.5% increase in total cash compensation and that includes the full hit on profit sharing.
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 1718729)
The only other concessions were manpower concessions, and the graph of pilots required shows the manpower required by the CONTRACT and thus it is the only relevant measure of what those concessions mean.
Also, your premise is flawed by the claim that the only other concessions were manpower concessions. Manpower is not affected by items like allowing 70 additional 76 seat RJ's, sick leave harassment policies, adding additional days of short call, increasing health care premiums, etc. Show us the cost of contractual value added...in dollars, then show us the cost of contractual concessions...in dollars. Thank you. Carl |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 1719417)
The problem isn't that they're asking us, but it's a combination of putting a concessionary item on the table AND the manner in which they're asking us to consider them. We're not given go opportunities to specify whether or not we want to go down a specific path. We're being asked:
Do you want to go down this path if other airlines are doing it? Do you want to go down this path if we can make improvement A? Do you want to go down the path if we can make improvement B? Do you not want to go down this path? You might get 65% of people to answering "no" to a straight-up Yes/No on CDO's, but you might bet 35% yes votes to line up with 8% that "A" is a good mitigating strategy, 8% that think "B" is a good mitigating strategy, and bingo, you have 51% saying they want CDO's with some improvement. This is exactly the way Prater's guys pulled off the claim of support for Age 65. This is a very poor survey, IMO. I'm a supporter of our union, but this doesn't meet standards of intellectual honesty. It smells of a few guys wanting OOBS and trying to push them through, a few others wanting CDO's, and whatever other pet items people fought over. I expected much better. It means they think you're stupid. |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 1719417)
The problem isn't that they're asking us, but it's a combination of putting a concessionary item on the table AND the manner in which they're asking us to consider it. We're not given cleanopportunities to specify whether or not we want to go down a specific path. We're being asked:
Do you want to go down this path if other airlines are doing it? Do you want to go down this path if we can make improvement A? Do you want to go down the path if we can make improvement B? Do you not want to go down this path? You might get 65% of people to answering "no" to a straight-up Yes/No on CDO's, but you might bet 35% yes votes to line up with 8% that "A" is a good mitigating strategy, 8% that think "B" is a good mitigating strategy, and bingo, you have 51% saying they want CDO's with some improvement. This is exactly the way Prater's guys pulled off the claim of support for Age 65. This is a very poor survey, IMO. I'm a supporter of our union, but this doesn't meet standards of intellectual honesty. It smells of a few guys wanting OOBS and trying to push them through, a few others wanting CDO's, and whatever other pet items people fought over. I expected much better. |
Originally Posted by Alan Shore
(Post 1719436)
I agree that there are probably more comprehensive ways to explore many of the issues in the survey. But how do you do that without creating something that's 1000 questions long that way too few of us would likely complete?
|
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 1719434)
It means they think you're stupid.
One of the questions that always has everyone foaming at the mouth is % pay increases. While there is a good question at the very end asking what our total cost increase should be, the questions on pay increases only address the initial increase, and only in the context of TVM. It seems to me we used to be asked what we wanted to see throughout the contract. I understand that the timing of the initial increase matters, but then again, it's not just the initial increase that tells the story. For example, I think 12% is a good initial number, but only if it's something like 12/8/8/7 AND the other sections are strengthened substantially. 12/5/5/5, not good enough. 12/0/0/0... DOA. So even on this most basic of points of gauging pay expectations, the survey fails. |
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 1719434)
That's classic business strategy 101: Give your employee's a survey where the questions can only be answered in the company's, or in this case the union's, opinion.
It means they think you're stupid. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1719131)
In Nov the change to 5:15 restores those lost jobs.
Carl |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 1719417)
The problem isn't that they're asking us, but it's a combination of putting a concessionary item on the table AND the manner in which they're asking us to consider it. We're not given cleanopportunities to specify whether or not we want to go down a specific path. We're being asked:
Do you want to go down this path if other airlines are doing it? Do you want to go down this path if we can make improvement A? Do you want to go down the path if we can make improvement B? Do you not want to go down this path? You might get 65% of people to answering "no" to a straight-up Yes/No on CDO's, but you might bet 35% yes votes to line up with 8% that "A" is a good mitigating strategy, 8% that think "B" is a good mitigating strategy, and bingo, you have 51% saying they want CDO's with some improvement. This is exactly the way Prater's guys pulled off the claim of support for Age 65. This is a very poor survey, IMO. I'm a supporter of our union, but this doesn't meet standards of intellectual honesty. It smells of a few guys wanting OOBS and trying to push them through, a few others wanting CDO's, and whatever other pet items people fought over. I expected much better. Why would we put concessions in our survey? It's a done deal. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:10 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands