Originally Posted by TED74 (Post 1898143)

I think this reads really well if you replace "shareholders" with "pilots". Imagine what we could achieve if management felt obligated to give pilots "some sort of satisfaction going forward".

What stock price penalty did we "pay" this year with the current PS in place? Why aren't shareholders who OWN delta smarter than the average bear, who knows that buybacks are usually a bad idea and often motivated by management's pursuit of self-enrichment?

Originally Posted by SharpestTool (Post 1898128)

The company will not tolerate a MEC that isn't credible.

Originally Posted by Army80 (Post 1897996)

I want a better contract.

How does your/living the dream's strategy get us a better contract? You want everything off the table from the get go. Nothing can be traded or bargained away for improvements. The only leverage remaining is "labor peace". I don't see this as a valid strategy for our pilot group.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1898107)

If you had 9/11 2.0 happen in 2016, you're guaranteed pay will be cut. It's not guaranteed. It's all at risk.

What you're really saying is you're okay with a lower W2 in 2016 as long as there is a pay raise in the Section 3 tables.

Originally Posted by TED74 (Post 1898150)

What the eff does this mean?

Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez (Post 1898149)

Warren Buffet LOVES share buybacks. Jim Cramer LOVES share buybacks. Both of those fellas have made a few dollars in the market. I'll believe them long before I'll believe some schmucks on an internet web board.

Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez (Post 1898133)

I'll give you some bullet points, and you can draw your own conclusion. Pilots got 37% of the entire profit sharing pool, which (the entire pool) amounted to $1 billion or 25% of the entire profit the company made in 2014. THe shareholders, and institutional managers, who like it or not, OWN Delta Air Lines, probably do not like this. Management is in a corner. They need to reduce that number. Barring that, they need to placate those shareholders somehow, thus a share buyback and return of capital to those shareholders.

You can disagree with it if you want, and I really don't care, but it is probably a lot closer to reality than most anything I hear on here. If those shareholders don't feel some sort of satisfaction going forward, and that satisfaction must come in the form of profit for themselves, the will put their money elsewhere. The result of that will be lower CAPEX. You want that? It's not a threat, just business. Again, I don't care if you believe it or not, I am connecting obvious dots. No threats or capitulation or no expectation management. If you choose to make your stand because of their $5B payout, you are fighting a losing cause. It's just business.

Again, I'll wait and see what's in the TA before I get all gangsta. YMMV.

Originally Posted by SharpestTool (Post 1898141)

What we cannot do and what will not be tolerated is to bait and switch. We cannot agree to something and then back out because we changed our minds. It destroys credibility.

Originally Posted by TED74 (Post 1898070)

I don't know why they weren't listening but hopefully they are now. And perhaps they were listening all along, but the pilots didn't start communicating until .