Index, are you Carl's alter ego?

If he's banned (and nobody seems to stay gone from this place forever, after all the site lives on page clicks) then at least there is a chance for a return to this site's reputation for fact filled posts and thoughtful discussion.

I miss Joan Rivers but wont miss Carl. (... and he will not give us a chance to miss him, he will be back)

I have had a good career except for the first 6 years, I freely admit that. I will never be senior on anything, but I have enough to hold where I am for now. But going forward, after the loss of the whales are absrbed, everybody is going to have a much better career. I can agree to disagree about the cap thingy. Fair enough?

Exactly. I didn't see anything "out of bounds" about Carl's comment at all. I mainly thought it was funny... but in terms of being derogatory or critical, it was much more benign than other comments that are made here on a daily basis. If the moderators are going to start restricting opinions that differ from theirs, this place is going to go down the tubes rather quickly.

Wow. Are you one of those who have sent Carl PM's in the past hoping he would literally die? Sounds like you could be.

Even though I disagree with the vast majority of what you post, Bar, I always thought you were just honestly stating your opinions. Now I'm beginning to wonder if you're really just one of those nasty political hatchet men for DALPA.

Conventional wisdom seems to be that the company will again come after productivity in the next negotiation. As such, I certainly don't blame ALPA for asking us our feelings about the various ways in which management might seek to address that. We each need to give loud and clear answers to these questions, so that there is no ambiguity as to how the pilot group feels.

I do have one question, though, for the crowd. Has anyone ever done or seen a study on whether it is better to become more productive (assuming that you can capture 100% of the value of that productivity in higher pay rates) or remain as is?

For example, suppose you make some sort of change in the contract that makes you more productive, e.g., higher ALV, pay banding, vacation sellback, whatever. Suppose further that you accurately determine the value of the resulting decrease in required staffing and increase pay rates by an equivalent amount.

The result is that each pilot will progress in his career at some slower rate, resulting in less seniority, slower upgrade, etc. At the same time, all pay rates will have been adjusted upward by some amount. Assuming the pilot flies the same number of hours or days either way, would the slower time to upgrade eventually overcome the higher pay rates overall, or vice versa, or would it make no difference?

Honest question -- I have no idea. Anybody?

DPA survey over 500 already.

Door pay--resounding yes

CDOs--no

Trade profit sharing for pay--well over 90% no.

Any Delta pilot can take the survey. You don't have to be a DPA member.

Alan

Good points. There was a lot of heat, but I was glad SLC and ATL warned pilots the some of these changes cost jobs.

The holy grail is to offset any job loss with productivity gains.

If the pilots want pay banding (I'm opposed) then we offset the jobs lost with an increase in the value of a vacation day. (One likely example).

I think this is more than achievable.

Jerry

If the moderators clamp down on flame bait and argumentative speech (which focuses on people and not the issues) the web board will be better for it.

You write:In reality I've sent Carl PM's offering him a client of ours for his consulting business (in other words, money). That is a pretty clear indication that I wish him nothing but the best professionally and personally. Your post is representative of exactly the sort of misrepresentation which should be moderated.

Sometimes "flame bait," "argumentative speech," and "focus on people and not the issues" is a matter of opinion. For example, I state that DALPA has accepted bankruptcy as a reset and has no objective for restoration. And you would probably call that flame bait, argumentative, and without basis in fact. The problem is that there is plenty of evidence to support my position. You just don't like the evidence so you dismiss it as irrelevant or wrong.


You compared Carl to Joan Rivers (who just died) and stated that Joan Rivers will be missed but Carl would not. It's not that much of a stretch to infer that you were saying you wouldn't miss Carl if he died... so if that's not what you meant, then I would suggest you clear it up now rather than keep digging a hole for yourself.

Did they ask if a late term forced abortion was better or worse then contract 2012?