I have had flight attendants ask me if we got profit sharing TOO.

As much as I disagree with just about everything Carl posts, the second part of your post is out of bounds. Carl most certainly earned the right to discuss concessions, as he lived through the worst of it.

Trying to paint C2012 in a negative light is what he does. I personally find it amusing that he is still clinging to the "cost neutral" argument when that is clearly not the case. It's been hashed out many times that the savings from RJ mx, up-gauging to 717's, and yes some of the concessions helped pay for the C2012 and possibly allow Ed to truthfully state it was cost neutral.

The only part that matters to us though is it WAS NOT zero-sum to the pilot group. We have all benefited financially - I have the bank statements to prove it.

Wow. Just...wow

You are spinning LCA trips, draconian sick leave changes, Scope relaxation--all on an artificially compressed timeline-- as "the opposite of concessions."

So those items, to you, are actually gains.

Mike Campbell thanks you for your good work.

ditto!!!!!!

The drama queen stuff doesn't help your case Bananie, nobody's said anything about ruining your life.

Again, nobody said the upgrades aren't real. You're not helping yourself.

Do you even read what you write? First you say the concessions were ones we ALL felt, then somehow whale captains escaped them? Again, not helping yourself at all.

Additional reserve days were real concessions. Profit sharing reduction was a real concession. 30 day summer months was a real concession. 70 additional 76 seat RJ's flown by non-Delta pilots was a real concession. This IS it. The only thing you should be saying about the upgrades we're seeing today is: "How much MORE upgrades would there have been without all our concessions?"

Carl

I must be missing something.
if In 2 years, the company is in the same position as it was in 2005. Is the bankruptcy court go to say, "take there PS away it is costing the company to much money?"

In short. NO.

Why trade it for anything. It is profitability pay. It in fact is probable the ONLY thing that would not be touched if the company was to fall into financial trouble.

PS may go up and it may go down but it is the only pay, in my opinion, that is "not at risk."

PS = VARIABLE PAY.

NOT "AT RISK"

What, now I understand. It is "AT RISK" of being traded pay.

Yeah, I could've sworn I remembered living through a bunch of concessions. Thanks for the fair shake.

It clearly is the case Leine. Richard and Ed have a legal responsibility not to give material false statements. They said it...I didn't.

But that's not all they said. They went further to say: "The additional savings realized by the new pilot contract will allow us to invest in initiatives that benefit other employee groups at Delta."

I think the evidence points to that it very likely was zero-sum from their statements. My bet is if DALPA or management ever released the costing sheets of C2012 negotiations, it would indeed show that our gains were offset by costed concessions. That's why Richard and Ed said what they said.

That's an entirely different question than whether we paid for those gains with costed concessions.

Carl

I want my company to do well and would like to be invested in its profitability to the maximum amount. I don't want to sell my stock as it is going up in price.

Exactly right. Bankruptcy courts would never pull profit sharing because there's no profits in bankruptcy. We should never voluntarily negotiate it away. EVER. It's entirely different and SEPARATE from pay rates.

Carl