Originally Posted by Timbo (Post 1875407)

So let me ask you this, and I want an answer, not more sidestepping:

WHO gets to decided what is "Realistic" when we negotiate with the company?

Reality has to be shaped. Reality is, the pilot group gave unprecedented concessions in LOA 46 and 51 and lost their DB plan too, providing Delta with Billions to save the company. That is the REALITY.

Today, Delta is making unprecedented profits, and projecting more next year, LOTS MORE. That's realistic. We should be making lots more too, considering how many BILLIONS WE GAVE THEM.

The pilot group, the NMB, the Media, and most importantly, The COMPANY all need to be reminded exactly how much MONEY (real money, not TVM) this pilot group has contributed to Delta's unprecedented profits. They way to do that is to gen up the Family Awareness groups, talk to the media and the NMB, and make it clear to them all, that we expect to be RESTORED to Pre-Bankruptcy Pay and Benefit levels.

That is not an 'unrealistic' ask in my opinion, not if you show the math and show how much more Management is making today, and show Wall Street how much our stock is worth today and show the shareholders how much more they are making with all the dividends and stock buybacks propping up the price.

Restoration is realistic, but not if you don't ask. You can do it proactively, but you need to let Management know, we will not continue to play nice if we are not restored.

The minute RA said, "Labor risk has been totally taken off the table..." would have been a great time to remind him, no, it's not. We can do this the hard way, or we can do it the easy way.

RA can have a new contract tomorrow, all he has to do is write the check, and presto, no labor risk. But unless he sees that we are serious about this, why should he do that?

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1875399)

I'm not debating you. I'm using your own words to ensure everyone here sees you for who you are.

Carl

Originally Posted by ERflyer (Post 1875189)

American rejects its pilots' contract plan - latimes

American Airlines pilots plan disruptions, not full strike - USATODAY.com

American asked for over 50% in 2008. They achieved their first raise in 2015. Meanwhile we had two contracts (where we asked for less) during that time that achieved pretty good increases in W-2. I'm making 56.7% more now than in 2009, same seat, same airplane, no green slips either year. (We all know we got wacked twice during bankruptcy.)

We're now going to get a third new contract with a nice raise - whatever it is. American is stuck with their contract until 2020. We'll probably get a fourth contract before they get another.

Based on this alone, what tactic do you think worked best? No emotion, no conjecture. Just facts.

Originally Posted by Raging white (Post 1875454)

I think you'd admit the economic climates in '08 and today are a bit different. Losing billions as opposed to billions in profit. I disagree with your conclusion that it was the pilots asking for 50% that netted them "less".

Causation vs. correlation.

Originally Posted by Timbo (Post 1875484)

Have you guys seen today's rumor on the ChitChat board?

9,6,4,4, with reductions in profit sharing to help pay for it, oh, and other manning concessions too.

Supposedly leaked by an insider to get a reaction.

Kind of like CDO's I guess.

Originally Posted by ERflyer (Post 1875497)

Not my post but this is what's on chitchat: The rumor du jour:

"-- Pay on a three year deal would look like ... 9%DOS, 6% on 1/1/16, 4%, 4% ...

-- Profit sharing concession would look like this ... will go from (10% below 2.5B and 20% above 2.5B) to (10% below 4.5B and 20% above 4.5B).

-- Credit on vacation and training would stay same but "pay hours" would go up ... (possibly keep vacation credit/week at 22:45 but pay as high as 35 hrs/week) ... expect the same type of deal for CQ.

-- retirement would get 1%-2% bump to stay in line with UAL and AA

-- Also considering a base stipend between $1000 and $500/month depending on where you live ... to cover parking and cost of living expenses. (example .. $1000 for NYC and $500 for ATL)

-- We did not have time to discuss sick time or pay banding or training freezes ... (not sure my buddy asked for that info)

-- My buddy got the impression that DALPA is/was "onboard" with these numbers ... So if you disagree, you better bend some reps ears!"


I'd vote No on that. We'd be paying for most of our own "raise".

Originally Posted by ERflyer (Post 1875497)

Not my post but this is what's on chitchat: The rumor du jour:

"-- Pay on a three year deal would look like ... 9%DOS, 6% on 1/1/16, 4%, 4% ...

-- Profit sharing concession would look like this ... will go from (10% below 2.5B and 20% above 2.5B) to (10% below 4.5B and 20% above 4.5B).

-- Credit on vacation and training would stay same but "pay hours" would go up ... (possibly keep vacation credit/week at 22:45 but pay as high as 35 hrs/week) ... expect the same type of deal for CQ.

-- retirement would get 1%-2% bump to stay in line with UAL and AA

-- Also considering a base stipend between $1000 and $500/month depending on where you live ... to cover parking and cost of living expenses. (example .. $1000 for NYC and $500 for ATL)

-- We did not have time to discuss sick time or pay banding or training freezes ... (not sure my buddy asked for that info)

-- My buddy got the impression that DALPA is/was "onboard" with these numbers ... So if you disagree, you better bend some reps ears!"


I'd vote No on that. We'd be paying for most of our own "raise".

Originally Posted by ERflyer (Post 1875497)

Not my post but this is what's on chitchat: The rumor du jour:

"-- Pay on a three year deal would look like ... 9%DOS, 6% on 1/1/16, 4%, 4% ...

-- Profit sharing concession would look like this ... will go from (10% below 2.5B and 20% above 2.5B) to (10% below 4.5B and 20% above 4.5B).

-- Credit on vacation and training would stay same but "pay hours" would go up ... (possibly keep vacation credit/week at 22:45 but pay as high as 35 hrs/week) ... expect the same type of deal for CQ.

-- retirement would get 1%-2% bump to stay in line with UAL and AA

-- Also considering a base stipend between $1000 and $500/month depending on where you live ... to cover parking and cost of living expenses. (example .. $1000 for NYC and $500 for ATL)

-- We did not have time to discuss sick time or pay banding or training freezes ... (not sure my buddy asked for that info)

-- My buddy got the impression that DALPA is/was "onboard" with these numbers ... So if you disagree, you better bend some reps ears!"


I'd vote No on that. We'd be paying for most of our own "raise".