pilotstats

Thank you. I'm glad that you agree with my analysis. You and I are quite in agreement that the "devil is in the details". See above from the original scenario posed. Of course it is vital to evaluate the remainder of the deal! I would not state otherwise.

The original was exercise to show that when controlling for other variables, a profit-sharing to pay conversion is just that, a conversion... not a concession.

It will help us all if we are using the same definitions, so let me know if you agree or not with the following in a contractual context:

Concession- the act of removing a contractual provision or protection where either: value is lost, no quid is made, no value is added elsewhere. Party A has a reduced value of their agreement going forward, and Party B has increased it's value within the agreement.

Exchange/Conversion/Trade-When two parties alter a contract where party A reduces the value of a provision or protection, and receives that value elsewhere in an agreement at the expense of party B. Also known as a "quid". Overall value remains the same to parties A and B, but the value is shifted to different areas than before the change.

Improvement/Gains-Where party A is able to increase the value of an agreement above and beyond the status quo. The end result being greater for party A than prior to the modified agreement.

Do you agree with those definitions?
Not at all. Not sure where it was stated "must be given up", those are your words not mine. I wholly disagree with that philosophy! Profit sharing is not bad, it's quite valuable actually (as the last few years have finally shown). I expect that the value will continue to be there over the next few years.

Your second comment is rather insulting, some of us(maybe not you) have actually been on the receiving end of a Ford and Harrison campaign, it's ugly, destructive, and has hurt many families over the years. I kindly ask that you refrain from attempting to apply that description to me.

If you notice, I agree with you in regards to valuation issues.

redship

I'm guessing this has already been discussed but I'm hearing more 76 seat RJs will probably be a part of this TA. I don't really care what the claimed exchange is (mainline flying 105 E190/195s), I am sick of feeding the regionals more relevant RJs. If the 76 seat market is so important then let's force Delta to fly them with Delta pilots.

gloopy

That's why I think that if the section 3 rumor here is true, and IF there's few to no concessions to pay for it, with perhaps some positives elsewhere anyway, that it would pass easily and the "time value of money" point of view would win out in a landslide with the MEC and memory rats.

But when I see 30%-ish from the company 6 months early, as well as reading between the lines the last year or so, and talking to my reps, if this rumor is true its going to be laced with concessions at every level. Even if they only get half of what I think they want in exchange, its a no deal from me.

gloopy

Just like politically they say "there would be no Reagan if it weren't for Carter" its equally true to say "there would be no C2K (a.k.a. "United plus") if it weren't for UAL". There would have been no United to plus off of were it not for the shortsighted laggership style of Goodwin, Wolf, et al in uniting the pilot group there in an unprecidented way.

There is a lot of value in motivating another team to do better. It makes the whole league stronger.

gloopy

Don't just focus on one cup as they spin them around each other. IMO they are going for layered, embedded, attenuated concessions at almost every level. Scope, work rules, sick and PS are all very much "on the table" from their point of view. Bet on it. I really hope to be wrong on that of course.

D Mantooth

I'd be remiss if I didn't add that there'd have been no UAL c2k rates had they not (successfully and admirably) patterned off of the "Delta Dot."

Despite attacks on their fortitude and unionism, I'm grateful that many of the men who brought us the "Dot" and C2k are still working on our behalf.

gloopy

Wasn't the "Delta Dot" a product of "the hammer" (3.b.6) that was immediately and permanently given up to get C2k in the first place?

In any case, UAL was only able to pattern off the Dot in the first place because they exibited an unprecidented level of resolve and unity rarely seen in the modern era. But you're right in that the Delta Dot was used by them as a higher target than they otherwise would have likely been able to aim for and hit.

D Mantooth

I wouldn't say it was rarely seen, but it's certainly not seen today. The actions of many on this and other boards who ridicule and vilify anyone remotely connected to DALPA certainly have a very real price.

You are correct on 3b6. Although I'll leave it up to those smarter than I to debate the odds that we'd have ever gotten to use it again after the 777 fight (big bucks, but with it the cost of cancelled orders).

Mesabah

Endeavor is building an E175/E195 program, with all Delta ops. I wonder if we will maintain the planes here while you guys fly the E195, and we the E175.

gloopy

717. A321. 737-900. A350. Possible 787s…

It was a perpetual hammer that was always going to be in the tool chest. Even an incompetent country club job hopper like LEOtheCEO could see that. Smart of him (from management's perspective) to get rid of it.