Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1918658)

Yup. Stockholm Syndrome is a powerful phenomenon.

Carl

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1918655)

Incorrect. EASK's provide the better protection for pilots. That's why we fought for EASK's in C2012. It's why the company wants out of it now in favor of block hours.

Carl

Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez (Post 1918671)

The question I have to keep asking myself is what is going to happen during the term of this agreement. Do you see a downturn? Do you see AAL or UAL suddenly overtaking DAL in terms of profitability and operations? They are both good airlines, but I think we are way ahead in terms of the merger synergies. And with what just happened to USAPA, how will that affect things? It surely won't be resolved in enough time to make a difference during the term of this agreement.

Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 1918675)

Flying will shift from China/Europe to South America, and other TPP countries. We may even get kicked out of China completely due to a looming currency war.

I expect over the next 5 years, American will be making more profit than all the other airlines combined. Delta will still be making $5-6 billion a year though. I see UAL possibly losing money depending on how they respond to the market shift.

Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez (Post 1918671)

mmmmmmmmaybe. Actually I agree with the logic that block hours are better in a downturn, but.... you have to ass/u/me that AK/KLM will downsize (which amazingly enough, they did not do at all in the last downturn which caused the company to be out of compliance). The elephant in the room is that we now have X% of all that flying, are instantly brought into compliance, and then allow a further reduction of block hours. Hmmmmmm I wonder what will happen?

The question I have to keep asking myself is what is going to happen during the term of this agreement. Do you see a downturn? Do you see AAL or UAL suddenly overtaking DAL in terms of profitability and operations? They are both good airlines, but I think we are way ahead in terms of the merger synergies. And with what just happened to USAPA, how will that affect things? It surely won't be resolved in enough time to make a difference during the term of this agreement.

Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez (Post 1918683)

Probably a fair assessment. American is certainly ramping up the debt though. That could get interesting in a downturn.

Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 1918691)

What kind of downturn? Our customers(people who fly) are pretty insulated against downturns. The people who get hosed don't really fly anyway. We saw the airlines get creamed during the housing bubble, it wasn't till after that bubble popped, that the airlines really took off. Stagflation is the killer of airlines, deflation is the savior.

Airline debt prevents corporate raiders from coming in, as Delta is becoming a juicy target for a hedge fund to gut the place. Wilson and Checci did this to NWA. I would rather Delta spend billions on product investment, than share buybacks. I think it's hilarious when management says that the JV airlines are a better product, apparently $6 billion wasn't enough to bring Delta up to par.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1918690)

The truth is nobody knows what will happen during this term. We can only look at what this TA language allows. It allows management unlimited growth in the JV flying. It also allows management to down gauge across the board to lower paying equipment and greatly shrink the number of Delta passengers being flown by Delta pilots. In my mind the question is, why would we ALLOW that shrinking option in our section 1?

Carl

Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez (Post 1918706)

With 850 million shares outstanding, I am not the least bit worried about a Carl Ichan coming in. That is so 80s.

Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 1918712)

You can buy a company that has $60 billion in assets for $35 billion. Name another company like that. Delta's stock is ridiculously undervalued.

Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez (Post 1918728)

Yeah, you think if someone walked in and threw down a blank check it would get filled in with $35 billion? That's LOL funny. I do agree that our stock is undervalued though. I'm counting on it ;)

Originally Posted by Mesabah (Post 1918731)

In 5 years, Delta will be sitting on $20 billion in cash and $40 billion in flight equipment, you bet your ass you could get a blank check for $35 billion. You and I could even do it, if we had a leaseback company willing to purchase the airplanes, and lease them back to us.

Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez (Post 1918541)

We aren't FORCING them to buy anything. They are gonna buy whatever they NEED to execute their plan. All we did in any of the above mentioned airframes was to place conditions upon other needs that allow them to buy what they want. And guess what: If they didn't need the 717s E190s and anything else, they wouldn't buy them. You really think any of those were huge wins for us? That's beyond naive.

The reason we don't have 787s is because BA couldn't deliver on it's promise. The original airframe did not perform anywhere near the level they said it would. It was massively heavier than originally sold. And mostly, Mr Anderson got a little lucky.

And tell me this. You want to hold them accountable for non compliance. OK. How you gonna do that? The way C15 does it is to move the goalposts. It's like saying land in the touchdown zone, but moving it back 1,000 feet in the middle of your flare. There are no damage mitigations spelled out in ANY of our contract language other than gray lawyer language that a first year student can shoot holes in. "To be brought back into compliance within a year" Really? We now have a precedence of a weak azzed grievance settlement of $30M. Pocket change. DAL is a $40 billion company. $30 million is a good holiday weekend.

Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez (Post 1918733)

They are not going to hoard cash, especially if our profit sharing remains in place. They will HAVE to pay out bigger dividends or more share buybacks. To wit: the most recent $5 billion buyback. You are worried about nothing.

Originally Posted by Herkflyr (Post 1918815)

Sometimes companies do hoard cash. Apple currently has $200 billion dollars in cash lying around--you read that number correctly. Their employees get little to none of it in the form of profit sharing.

Read the following. With $178 billion in cash as of last December, not ONE mention of profit sharing.

Apple CEO Cook Says Company Doesn?t Want to Hoard Cash - Bloomberg Business

Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez (Post 1918603)

Code shares and JVs are a fact of life in a global corporation. Get over it. SWA will never grow and never do anything near what we do with the clauses they have, and you know it. If that is your idea of Nirvana, then you got hired at the wrong place. I wouldn't trade places with their number 1 captain. ymmv.

Originally Posted by BobZ (Post 1918627)

B-man.....say it aint so!.....dalpa will get the db back....just you wait and see!:)

Your point of career earnings is spot on.....as we exited BK I floated an idea to the R&I guys about the best way to structure a delta pilots retirement benefit....it involved getting to the maximum extent.. front loaded company contribution to self directed savings.

it was probably not a template that would retrofit....it would have to start with pilot 'zero'.....well, pilot zero is now onboard and we are still stuck with traditionalists thinking.

If this pilot 'group' wanted to be at the head of the class...the pwa would provide the company filling to the 415c ceiling from year one.

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1918907)

Your 3rd sentance just reminded me that no McFly ever amounted to anything in the history of Hill Valley.

T,
There's no turning the clock back on code shares and joint ventures, but we still have to protect and defend our scope.

It is the only thing that defines what a delta pilot is.

Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez (Post 1918671)

mmmmmmmmaybe. Actually I agree with the logic that block hours are better in a downturn, but.... you have to ass/u/me that AK/KLM will downsize (which amazingly enough, they did not do at all in the last downturn which caused the company to be out of compliance). The elephant in the room is that we now have X% of all that flying, are instantly brought into compliance, and then allow a further reduction of block hours. Hmmmmmm I wonder what will happen?

The question I have to keep asking myself is what is going to happen during the term of this agreement. Do you see a downturn? Do you see AAL or UAL suddenly overtaking DAL in terms of profitability and operations? They are both good airlines, but I think we are way ahead in terms of the merger synergies. And with what just happened to USAPA, how will that affect things? It surely won't be resolved in enough time to make a difference during the term of this agreement.

Originally Posted by satchip (Post 1919361)

Everyone touting this EASK to BH change as downside protection is ignoring recent history, as Bender Square pointed out. We just saw one of the worst downturns in history and who reduced? Not AF/KLM. We did and hence the JV grievance. Changing to BH gives the company downside protection, not us.

Also, Carl, I agree with you that this is a bad thing and that theoretically Delta could fly Cessnas across the pond and be in compliance but when you quote the article that Delta is buying more 757s for this flying it doesn't help our argument because 757 pays the same as 767 which does the majority of the Atlantic Delta flying. During a severe Europe crisis, if they pulled 330s in favor of 75s then yes , you'd have a better point. But that is a huge downguage. I'd think the cargo requirements would prevent that.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1919400)

This TA language allowing for the downgauge from A330 to 757 (or as small as possible) is my main concern. But even the downgauge from 767 to 757 is troubling. Although it wouldn't change the pilot pay part of the equation, it moves more Delta passengers to non-Delta metal flown by non-Delta pilots. That is a trend which should concern Delta pilots more than any other concession in this TA.

Carl