Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1906721)

Want to go back to 2004?

Ok. Which side?

Because we end up above 2004 rates in this TA.

For nwa rates we end up 24% or more above 2004 rates.

So on average fNwa pilots are inflation adjusted plus on this TA.

Those are the facts of 2004.

But, you have to decide if the concessions outweigh the gains for you personally, and vote b

Originally Posted by TheManager (Post 1906726)

Absolutely. The question will be posed again to you T Bender:

Are you refuting that a fast negotiation, where the company controlled the pace, did not work to our advantage?


Thanks for the copy on the post T. The more people who see it, the better the understanding of the concept behind controlling the pace of negotiation. We took it a step further by becoming beholden to the pace in the hopes that the compensation would out weigh the concessions.

Whoops! Got check mated instead.



Here's a repost again





The way it was just done was a text book example of how one allows themselves to get negotiated into a corner and checkmated.

DELTA: we need a quick agreement, let's open early! Fast fast

US: ok, let's go.

DELTA: we need drastic changes to SL verification, access to medical records conducted by a third party, and we require the ability to look back.

US: no way what we have now is adequate. How about a bank instead? We need to study this.

DELTA: no way, this is non negotiable. Come on faster, faster.

US: ok then, but bring your check book when we talk money.

DELTA: we want virtual bases. Again non negotiable, we must have it. Quickly now.

US: no way, it abrogates seniority. Not happening

DELLTA: we are trying to do this fast. Come on now. We need it. We have a manning problem. We will bring the check book.

US: ok, let us talk to the reps and the MEC. Pause-pause-pause- talk-confer. So you are going bring the check book cause this is going to cost you, right?

DELTA: of course we are going to bring it, next up is scope. More big RJs and we need you to relax the JV scope and language.

US: what, wait, this is a lot of stuff real fast here. Slow down, scope give backs now! In this environ...

DELTA: we NEED THIS. We are bring the check book. Come on hurry up and get with the program.

US: ok.

DELTA: ok, here is the money, we will write you a check.

First, the e ground rules...... Changing PS trigger, 2.5 to 6 B and we are going to change the how it is calculated by subtracting stock options and the salary of executives from the current PTIX definition to come up with a new lower PTIX. So we are going to pay ourselves first and increase our pay once we sign this, you know, a bonus for a job well done.

You are going to pay for your pay increase from PS. When it's all said and done, 8/0/3/3, that's it. 1 % DC but not for nearly two years from now. And five pennies per hour-snicker-snicker-is all we could possibly afford for a per diem increase, that's it.

US: no way, you said you are going to bring the check book , this is not enough. This is not nearly enough for all the gives we just TA'd for you. We engaged you proactively! Come on now, this is not how it works.

DELTA: we brought the check book, see it? However, this is all we are writing the check for. Take it or leave it. Leave it we go to traditional section 6 negotiations and we are done for now. OBTW, we won't get those mD88 replacements and that other jet that will make us a 10 fleet airline, with more training head aches, that we plan on paying a B scale wage for if you don't do this NOW.

Originally Posted by TheManager (Post 1906676)

What lies of FPL loss would those be? I personally did not bring any up. I just commented, "enjoy the FPL" knowing full well you are being paid to be here. Refocus though, what lies about FPL and mis-use of FPL are you talking about and which facts are you referring to that (we) don't get?

99% of the people here are NOT being paid to be here and are volunteering their time free of charge to make sure ALL the facts and full language about this TA are verified and broadcast instead of just the talking bullet points.

Wow. All this time here fighting to hold ground you are losing is having a toll.

If this is an "island of rancor and discontent" here, why bother being here at all as by definition you'd be wasting your time with Donatellii's 1% ?

Over a million views since the TA came out.

Facebook group has grown exponentially as well after forming after the TA.

Chitchat traffic and views off the charts.

So, are publishing the letters from John Malone, former reps, other ALPA airline reps, and from the reps at Delta that voted NO, these letters are in your words "childish and baseless allegations"?

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1906723)

It may not always be the smartest way (witness the Delta stock buyback under Leo Mullin?) before bankruptcy. But it is a stock buyback's only purpose.


You don't know me Tsquare. We've never met or spoken. Moving the needle is an undefined term. Stock buy backs provide a floor for common stock to ensure stock options stay above the strike price when the lock ups are over. That benefit is mostly received by executives.

Carl

Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez (Post 1906729)

Put some names with that post, and then I will believe it is fact. until then, it is merely hyperbole. Fail.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1906730)

Ouch. When you put it that way...

Ouch.

Carl

Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1906678)

Once more, your rhetorical take users monocular vision to portray the problem.

Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1906678)

Yes, buybacks enhance positions held by DAL executives.

Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1906678)

But as a PUBLICLY held concern the mission of the Delta BoD is to return value to their shareholders. Buybacks do this two ways. It gives some shareholders payouts and decreases the number of shares thereby increasing individual stock share prices. But you know this.

Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1906678)

So to say that a stock buyback program is wholly a ploy by management is misleading.

Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1906683)

Carl,

Once more.
You brought up specifics. I addressed them. Your take on them was not correct.

IF you have more specifics, I'm sure I can answer them or someone else can.