Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

This is not only 100% correct, it is absolutely unarguable. But then why do so many of the vehement DALPA defenders continue to denigrate this most basic tenet of making gains in life? They denigrate it not because it is wrong or inappropriate, they denigrate it because specific goals and objectives would provide a metric by which DALPA's effectiveness could be measured. For that reason, DALPA will fight anything that could provide such a measuring metric. That's why DALPA will never release survey results...even after negotiations are over. It's also why the contract opener we exchange with management will never be released.

Carl

Yikes, that is post 9,999. Help me FTB! Don't let me do it!

Originally Posted by tsquare

Who said anything about pay banding Einstein?

Originally Posted by Alan Shore

Even increasing it?

Originally Posted by tsquare

Who said anything about pay banding Einstein?

Originally Posted by Timbo

What irritates some here Oberon is, you never lost anything in Delta's bankrutpcy, so YOU have no dog in the Restoration fight.

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver

I did a little exercise at the end of last year that I think helps clarify whether or not negotiating for the kind of improvement it would take to restore our pay would be "in good faith" or "reasonable." I estimated the number of passengers I carried last year. I think I had pretty sound methodology for this estimate:

I took the actual number of days I flew last year. I figure on the MD-88/90 the average number of legs per day is 3. The MD-88 holds 149 PAX and the MD-90 holds 160. Our loads are pretty full most of the time, so I used 145 as the average passenger load.

Then, I looked at my December 31 pay stub. I added Flight Pay, Flight Advance, Profit Sharing, Shared Rewards, and company contributions into my retirement accounts... basically total compensation for the year.

Then I divided that number by the number of passengers I carried. My total cost to Delta per passenger? $2.98.

So... obviously it's more than just me up there. And some airplanes have higher paid Captains and more than two pilots. So let's say for illustration purposes that the average cockpit cost per passenger is $7. To increase our W2's to the same level of buying power we had during most of the 1980's, 1990's, and early 2000's, we would need approximately a 50% increase. Using $7 as our average cockpit cost per passenger, that's an additional $3.50 Delta would need to net per passenger. Delta invented $25 bag fees out of thin air and has no trouble collecting them. I have no doubt that they could find a way to net (whether through revenue increases or cost cuts in other areas or some combination) $3.50 more per passenger if they needed to. Where there's a will there's a way. Our management proves this every single day. They are very good at thinking outside the box.

So, is "restoration" reasonable? Would we be negotiating "in good faith?" Clearly, I think so. I think there is a strong case to be made for that. Trouble is, nobody is making that case on our behalf.

Originally Posted by TheManager

Now T, why with the condescending a$$ act again?

Originally Posted by Hillbilly

So none of the pilots hired in 2007 and beyond have a dog in the fight for our next contract? I guess several frequent posters on these boards will need to cease and desist then.

While your statement doesn't change my dog in the fight, I disagree with the general sentiment. I do agree that when someone *****es and complains about something that happened when they weren't even here it comes across as disingenuous. I think T has made that very argument about PD before if I recall correctly. Basically an argument of "when were you hired? you weren't even here so shut your yap". I think he promptly got bashed for it too.