Interesting fact: The debt reduction of $10B in the last 6 years has resulted in interest savings of $700M annually. That is 2/3rds of the stated value of the 3.5 year TA in a single year.

 

None of the allowable days. The problem that I discussed with Perri O and Sink (P2P or maybe an x-rep?, at least that's what he's accuse of) was who would the worker bees be. They both attempted to find out an answer to my question of who was going to administer the program. All that they could tell me was it wouldn't be Segwick. I don't think it's really a stretch to believe it would have been a group who sold their services as someone who would cut actual sick leave usage. IE, tied even non-abusers up in paperwork just to get paid for their sick trips.

Looking back on it now that the TA was defeated, I really don't think this detail was even worked out. But, moot point now I guess.

Ferd

 

Well that right there puts it in a nutshell. When asked to make a hard decision about what you are going to do about staffing, you punt and go on the attack. Please tell me, with all your infinite wisdom, that you understand that if staffing problems are your leverage, you have to do something about their staffing problems in order to use that leverage. You can't say to them that you have leverage over staffing and then tell them you won't do a thing about it.

So instead of making a hard choice, you take the coward's way out and simply sit back and criticize the choices that others were forced to make.

This is exactly the point I was making before. Leadership is about making hard choices. You think there is some world where you walk into a room and make your contract demands and management simply nods their heads and signs the paper. That world doesn't exist, it never existed, and it will never exist. So if you ever want a contract, you need to get back to the real world. Your sanctimonious crap is just sanctimonious crap. I have more time flying Delta jets around than you do so I really don't need a lecture about "flying the line". What a bunch of crap.

If you examine the cases of US Airways pilots in their merger and the United pilots in their merger you will see the contrast in leadership and results. The US Airways pilots took the easy, cowardly way and simply sat on straight date of hire. They never had to answer for making tough choices to their pilots but in the end they screwed them over by making themselves irrelevant to their seniority integration.

The United MEC took a different path. Instead of sticking on an unreasonable position like straight date of hire, they made the tough choice to go for a hybrid list. The webboard jockeys, just like you, criticized them for being surrender monkeys and weaklings and I'm sure for "not flying the line". In the end, the seniority list was built around the ideas of the United pilots and they benefited from that greatly. They were lucky that the webboard crowd was ignored.

That is what the real world is about. Making tough choices in an imperfect world. Guys like you get to ride above that by standing back and throwing rocks at people that get in there and make those tough choices. Well bully for you. I know you think you are tough but I see you as weak; too weak to make the tough choices. So maybe you should try to put your big boy pants on and actually get in and make some of those choices. I mean, you say it's easy, so you should have this all figured out in a jiffy. By the way, I prefer to work only on Tuesday so see if you can get that fixed up for me.

 

You are saying DALPA made contract demands...I think.

Not seeing it.

At least 2/3s got it right.

 

Did somebody step on a duck?

Or was that just another flatulent barrage from a displaced Moakist hoping with all his soul that the pilot group fails?

 

And I answered you.

 

Here's something to think about before you lower your expectations any further:

Conclusion

Ultimately, a company's credit risk (or lack thereof) is driven by cash available against cash obligations.

In the case of DAL, their cash flows would comfortably exceed all obligations over the next seven years with a healthy cash flow buffer. CDS markets and Moody's rating are materially overstating DAL's credit risk. A tightening of CDS market spreads and an improvement in ratings are therefore expected.

Valens Credit Ratings are those made by the Valens Credit organization, determined by a ratings committee in a systematic process, and not the opinion of any single person.

 

By saying that you realize you're saying you did read the contract and realized you were wrong. Werre you mad when you realized it wasn't there?

So you want us all to live in fantasy land that stuff that's not in the contract but promised by dalpa in a powerpoint slide will be upheld by the company? This is despite the fact that they could have simply been inserted in the original and real document but chose not to do so?

BTW, you missed the memo alpa was using to refute this issuw when this got brought up during the vote. They had a different excuse. But it got shot down.

 

So your solution to their staffing issue was scope, sick, profit sharing and work rule concessions in exchange for 8033.

The true hard choice when facing this was to get up and walk away from the table. It was really an easy choice but somehow it was too hard to do.

The easy choice was to throw the pilots under the bus and send this to memrat.

Which made a no vote pretty easy. Funny how that really worked.

 

I never claimed it was in the PWA. To the contrary, I pointed out that it was a contractually enforceable agreement between the union and the company and that this had been briefed at the road shows and in a Contrails. This was news to you. You refuse to believe the agreement is enforceable, and I have lost interest in addressing you delusions, but you keep bringing it up, so I keep responding.