No 3B.4. Grievance
03-21-2016, 02:13 AM
#51
Runs with scissors
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,722
Originally Posted by gzsg
From Investors Business Daily
"The global airline (Delta) is benefiting from lower fuel prices and even operates its own oil refinery to cut operating costs. Wall Street sees Q1 profit soaring 189% to $1.30 a share, on top of a 36% jump in earnings per share in the same quarter in 2015. Analysts also see full-year profit up 48% to $6.82 a share."
Yes, up 48% for 2016.
"The global airline (Delta) is benefiting from lower fuel prices and even operates its own oil refinery to cut operating costs. Wall Street sees Q1 profit soaring 189% to $1.30 a share, on top of a 36% jump in earnings per share in the same quarter in 2015. Analysts also see full-year profit up 48% to $6.82 a share."
Yes, up 48% for 2016.
03-21-2016, 03:03 AM
#52
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by gzsg
From Investors Business Daily
"The global airline (Delta) is benefiting from lower fuel prices and even operates its own oil refinery to cut operating costs. Wall Street sees Q1 profit soaring 189% to $1.30 a share, on top of a 36% jump in earnings per share in the same quarter in 2015. Analysts also see full-year profit up 48% to $6.82 a share."
Yes, up 48% for 2016.
"The global airline (Delta) is benefiting from lower fuel prices and even operates its own oil refinery to cut operating costs. Wall Street sees Q1 profit soaring 189% to $1.30 a share, on top of a 36% jump in earnings per share in the same quarter in 2015. Analysts also see full-year profit up 48% to $6.82 a share."
Yes, up 48% for 2016.
There is a significant savings on fuel, in the 5-6 billion dollar range. I also expect us to hedge at some point if fuel continues to creep up.
03-21-2016, 03:09 AM
#53
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Originally Posted by gzsg
Self justification and psychobable.
Delta is making profits no one could have ever envisioned on the backs of the Delta pilots over $15 Billion in concessions and counting.
In this environment you got a nickel of per diem, :15 minutes of pay, no credit vacation and you couldn't even come close to matching the flight attendants 4:45 training day and/or minimum day. All with severe concessions including yet again, SCOPE.
Tell us, did profits peak in 2015?
The latest AE had almost 900 names on it. Tell us again how the reduction in trips for first officers with LCA was not going to affect anyone.
You are the weakest link.
PS Do you have two $20s for a $10?
Delta is making profits no one could have ever envisioned on the backs of the Delta pilots over $15 Billion in concessions and counting.
In this environment you got a nickel of per diem, :15 minutes of pay, no credit vacation and you couldn't even come close to matching the flight attendants 4:45 training day and/or minimum day. All with severe concessions including yet again, SCOPE.
Tell us, did profits peak in 2015?
The latest AE had almost 900 names on it. Tell us again how the reduction in trips for first officers with LCA was not going to affect anyone.
You are the weakest link.
PS Do you have two $20s for a $10?
It was part of the rationale used, you can disagree with it.
You also were one that spread rumors of vote trading, and quite frankly, you got used, because I wasn't the one vote trading.
03-21-2016, 03:20 AM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
None of the training should be surprising at all. More eyewatering AE's will be coming. Duh.
It was part of the rationale used, you can disagree with it.
You also were one that spread rumors of vote trading, and quite frankly, you got used, because I wasn't the one vote trading.
It was part of the rationale used, you can disagree with it.
You also were one that spread rumors of vote trading, and quite frankly, you got used, because I wasn't the one vote trading.
There was nothing to vote yes for. The fact you couldn't figure that out is astounding.
Worst negotiation in history.
Luckily we rejected it.
As the United pilots taught you, concessions are not necessary during record profits.
03-21-2016, 03:44 AM
#55
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
None of the training should be surprising at all. More eyewatering AE's will be coming. Duh.
It was part of the rationale used, you can disagree with it.
You also were one that spread rumors of vote trading, and quite frankly, you got used, because I wasn't the one vote trading.
It was part of the rationale used, you can disagree with it.
You also were one that spread rumors of vote trading, and quite frankly, you got used, because I wasn't the one vote trading.
Tread lightly.
Us old timers here (not as old timer as you) want to believe you aren't tainted goods and welcome you back with open arms.
But, you want to see who got used?
03-21-2016, 04:08 AM
#56
Wind the clock beoch
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 437
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
1) I will answer again, I have not asked nor have I been asked to anything at National.
2) I wrote the resolution to get the last BOD to review the president's annuity to that, if you came from a carrier that did not have a pension or an annuity, you got what you had at your carrier. IE a 401K. FDX is the only carrier out there that has a pension which is not frozen that is part of ALPA. The MEC passed it, it was sent to a review committee and their recommendations were presented and debated in Delegate Committee 1. They changed some of the tax stuff but my desires for this to get reworked did not happen. If I was still a rep, I would have written a resolution before this last MEC meeting, submitted it for MEC approval and started the process again. Why? Its the world we live in today and its the right thing to do.
3) I could write a book on why my final decision was to send the TA to you, but most do not want to relive the past and I respect that. It was not a home run, nothing close, it was a very difficult decision for many members of the MEC. We sent the NC back multiple times for more, and the company refused to move every time. They would not even let us move gains in to the pillars. To me that was telling.
It was TAed and which surprised me. At the end of the day, we elect the committee to be the ones in the room. The company was done, and if we were going to go down the road we are now traveling down, the pilot group had to willfully decide that. The data we had was not clear on this and the recommendation from the parliamentarian lawyer who has been doing this for 60 years was, leverage in this situation comes from the membership.
I conferred with the committee, the professional negotiators and a myriad of others. To a person given everything they saw and experienced we were in a spot where the pilot group needed to decide the path. If there was any way that turning this back at a very split MEC was going to yield better results I and some others would have done that. I recommended a "yes" vote because given everything I witnessed, and discussed with many reps, and others, there was no better deal in 48 hours or six to nine months away. My feeling was absent this deal, we would see the upheaval we have, loose many months at the table and find ourselves downrange quite a bit before talks seriously resumed. So far DAL has done everything they said they would do with a rejection of that deal. I was hoping that was a bluff, but so far its not. I wasn't going to rely on hope as a rep.
What it wasn't was a gamble on my political future, nor me giving up. I will not get in to polling data, etc, but I will state that I wanted more data and called for it in the April special meeting. It wasn't done. We didn't disregard what we had, not at all, and the concerns the pilot group had are the same ones many reps did. Turning this back 11-8 or 10-9 was not going to lead to a better deal and that is where we were. Given the significant resistance from the company it would have been a push at 19-0 No from the MEC. I mean that. Nothing is stronger than a pilot group down vote. Its leverage but it has to be used strategically. The negotiation was not pleasant at all. We said no to many things that would make what came in the TA seem like a walk in the park.
4) DAL's PRASM has been going down for many quarters. It was flat and no one else was near a deal. Like it love it or hate it, even in rejection our TA set the cost floor for SWAPA to get a deal and reject it, FDX to get a TA and pass it, and UAL to move up without having their costs out of line with the sector. The deals that pass help raise the corners of the house and the market has changed for the better since the deal, but IMHO none of that would have happened as quickly as it did if we did get to a TA, even if it was rejected.
Looking at profit, it should be noted that fuel is a savings of 5-6billion this year or 2/3rdds of the PTIX from last year. If our ability to price is the same we should be making 12-14 billion but we are not. Its still asinine money at the current profit level, but pricing power has ebbed a bunch. If fuel spikes and the ticket prices do not reflect the passthrough, the profit numbers will become effected. Duh!
If you look at FX (Foreign Exchange) DAL has over a 700 million dollar hit for the fact that the US Dollar is the strongest currency and they have lost pricing power overseas.
If you read the twitter comments from the EFA briefing that was given at the MEC meeting it paints a picture of what I saw last summer, not horrible but sluggish for the sector. DAL is a shining star, but they compete with these other carriers that are not performing as well, nor are they as deleveraged at DAL. IMHO, the last thing DAL wants is to go through a concessionary period again with its pilots, pushed a little too far with us, and we reacted. They do not want us to be a competitive advantage for other companies. They have stated clearly they want us to be top of the industry on costs, but only to a certain level. We as a group are willing to say no and fight for more.
It would have been nice for more than 55% of the pilot group to take the first survey and say that. Note that 55% of those that took the survey which was close to that number is in the low 30%. See a theme here? If you didn't take the survey the first time, it may have led to that willingness not coming through.
DAL is in a great position to whether the downturn that generally happens after a new US president is elected, and will likely remain well in to the black. What may change is DAL's willingness to add costs in that softening, if/when it occurs.
Yes, we "deserve" everything we are asking for, and quite frankly, this was not where our pilot group was a year and a half ago. With fuel going down as sharply as it did, I suspect it rose expectations much faster than the polling may have indicated. It still does not mean that DAL would have agreed to higher costs, but it does mean that the MEC would have been in a better position rejecting it.
Like I said, I am happy to discuss my rationale on any vote. Give me a call.
2) I wrote the resolution to get the last BOD to review the president's annuity to that, if you came from a carrier that did not have a pension or an annuity, you got what you had at your carrier. IE a 401K. FDX is the only carrier out there that has a pension which is not frozen that is part of ALPA. The MEC passed it, it was sent to a review committee and their recommendations were presented and debated in Delegate Committee 1. They changed some of the tax stuff but my desires for this to get reworked did not happen. If I was still a rep, I would have written a resolution before this last MEC meeting, submitted it for MEC approval and started the process again. Why? Its the world we live in today and its the right thing to do.
3) I could write a book on why my final decision was to send the TA to you, but most do not want to relive the past and I respect that. It was not a home run, nothing close, it was a very difficult decision for many members of the MEC. We sent the NC back multiple times for more, and the company refused to move every time. They would not even let us move gains in to the pillars. To me that was telling.
It was TAed and which surprised me. At the end of the day, we elect the committee to be the ones in the room. The company was done, and if we were going to go down the road we are now traveling down, the pilot group had to willfully decide that. The data we had was not clear on this and the recommendation from the parliamentarian lawyer who has been doing this for 60 years was, leverage in this situation comes from the membership.
I conferred with the committee, the professional negotiators and a myriad of others. To a person given everything they saw and experienced we were in a spot where the pilot group needed to decide the path. If there was any way that turning this back at a very split MEC was going to yield better results I and some others would have done that. I recommended a "yes" vote because given everything I witnessed, and discussed with many reps, and others, there was no better deal in 48 hours or six to nine months away. My feeling was absent this deal, we would see the upheaval we have, loose many months at the table and find ourselves downrange quite a bit before talks seriously resumed. So far DAL has done everything they said they would do with a rejection of that deal. I was hoping that was a bluff, but so far its not. I wasn't going to rely on hope as a rep.
What it wasn't was a gamble on my political future, nor me giving up. I will not get in to polling data, etc, but I will state that I wanted more data and called for it in the April special meeting. It wasn't done. We didn't disregard what we had, not at all, and the concerns the pilot group had are the same ones many reps did. Turning this back 11-8 or 10-9 was not going to lead to a better deal and that is where we were. Given the significant resistance from the company it would have been a push at 19-0 No from the MEC. I mean that. Nothing is stronger than a pilot group down vote. Its leverage but it has to be used strategically. The negotiation was not pleasant at all. We said no to many things that would make what came in the TA seem like a walk in the park.
4) DAL's PRASM has been going down for many quarters. It was flat and no one else was near a deal. Like it love it or hate it, even in rejection our TA set the cost floor for SWAPA to get a deal and reject it, FDX to get a TA and pass it, and UAL to move up without having their costs out of line with the sector. The deals that pass help raise the corners of the house and the market has changed for the better since the deal, but IMHO none of that would have happened as quickly as it did if we did get to a TA, even if it was rejected.
Looking at profit, it should be noted that fuel is a savings of 5-6billion this year or 2/3rdds of the PTIX from last year. If our ability to price is the same we should be making 12-14 billion but we are not. Its still asinine money at the current profit level, but pricing power has ebbed a bunch. If fuel spikes and the ticket prices do not reflect the passthrough, the profit numbers will become effected. Duh!
If you look at FX (Foreign Exchange) DAL has over a 700 million dollar hit for the fact that the US Dollar is the strongest currency and they have lost pricing power overseas.
If you read the twitter comments from the EFA briefing that was given at the MEC meeting it paints a picture of what I saw last summer, not horrible but sluggish for the sector. DAL is a shining star, but they compete with these other carriers that are not performing as well, nor are they as deleveraged at DAL. IMHO, the last thing DAL wants is to go through a concessionary period again with its pilots, pushed a little too far with us, and we reacted. They do not want us to be a competitive advantage for other companies. They have stated clearly they want us to be top of the industry on costs, but only to a certain level. We as a group are willing to say no and fight for more.
It would have been nice for more than 55% of the pilot group to take the first survey and say that. Note that 55% of those that took the survey which was close to that number is in the low 30%. See a theme here? If you didn't take the survey the first time, it may have led to that willingness not coming through.
DAL is in a great position to whether the downturn that generally happens after a new US president is elected, and will likely remain well in to the black. What may change is DAL's willingness to add costs in that softening, if/when it occurs.
Yes, we "deserve" everything we are asking for, and quite frankly, this was not where our pilot group was a year and a half ago. With fuel going down as sharply as it did, I suspect it rose expectations much faster than the polling may have indicated. It still does not mean that DAL would have agreed to higher costs, but it does mean that the MEC would have been in a better position rejecting it.
Like I said, I am happy to discuss my rationale on any vote. Give me a call.
What you fail to comprehend even today, is that we are in the mess we are today because of YOU and the rest of the MD11. It is not the surveys fault, the pilots' fault, management's fault, the economy, etc... It is YOUR fault. Own it.
None of you had the backbone to tell the company NFW to all of their concessions. Instead, you voted IN FAVOR of a concessionary laden contract during a time of unprecedented profits. No one (or at least 65% of the group is not) is buying your spin.
It gets worse. You and your black shirt buddies then sold the **** out of it in the lounges. Fortunately the pilot group saw through all of this and voted that POS down.
The four ATL reps (and the other 7) should have resigned immediately. Instead the ATL reps delayed and obstructed the recall attempt. In the end the four managed to hang on to the ALPA teat by a thread. This self-serving action put us at least four months behind and put a NC and counter on the table by the very same group that brought us POS15.
The MD11 were and are an epic fail. Most profitable era in airline history and you voted for concessions. All because the company "said" they were done moving. Brilliant.
03-21-2016, 04:13 AM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,568
Such as cancel the 739 and 190 order? Re-engine the 50 seaters? C'mon man!
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
1) I will answer again, I have not asked nor have I been asked to anything at National.
2) I wrote the resolution to get the last BOD to review the president's annuity to that, if you came from a carrier that did not have a pension or an annuity, you got what you had at your carrier. IE a 401K. FDX is the only carrier out there that has a pension which is not frozen that is part of ALPA. The MEC passed it, it was sent to a review committee and their recommendations were presented and debated in Delegate Committee 1. They changed some of the tax stuff but my desires for this to get reworked did not happen. If I was still a rep, I would have written a resolution before this last MEC meeting, submitted it for MEC approval and started the process again. Why? Its the world we live in today and its the right thing to do.
3) I could write a book on why my final decision was to send the TA to you, but most do not want to relive the past and I respect that. It was not a home run, nothing close, it was a very difficult decision for many members of the MEC. We sent the NC back multiple times for more, and the company refused to move every time. They would not even let us move gains in to the pillars. To me that was telling.
It was TAed and which surprised me. At the end of the day, we elect the committee to be the ones in the room. The company was done, and if we were going to go down the road we are now traveling down, the pilot group had to willfully decide that. The data we had was not clear on this and the recommendation from the parliamentarian lawyer who has been doing this for 60 years was, leverage in this situation comes from the membership.
I conferred with the committee, the professional negotiators and a myriad of others. To a person given everything they saw and experienced we were in a spot where the pilot group needed to decide the path. If there was any way that turning this back at a very split MEC was going to yield better results I and some others would have done that. I recommended a "yes" vote because given everything I witnessed, and discussed with many reps, and others, there was no better deal in 48 hours or six to nine months away. My feeling was absent this deal, we would see the upheaval we have, loose many months at the table and find ourselves downrange quite a bit before talks seriously resumed. So far DAL has done everything they said they would do with a rejection of that deal. I was hoping that was a bluff, but so far its not. I wasn't going to rely on hope as a rep.
What it wasn't was a gamble on my political future, nor me giving up. I will not get in to polling data, etc, but I will state that I wanted more data and called for it in the April special meeting. It wasn't done. We didn't disregard what we had, not at all, and the concerns the pilot group had are the same ones many reps did. Turning this back 11-8 or 10-9 was not going to lead to a better deal and that is where we were. Given the significant resistance from the company it would have been a push at 19-0 No from the MEC. I mean that. Nothing is stronger than a pilot group down vote. Its leverage but it has to be used strategically. The negotiation was not pleasant at all. We said no to many things that would make what came in the TA seem like a walk in the park.
4) DAL's PRASM has been going down for many quarters. It was flat and no one else was near a deal. Like it love it or hate it, even in rejection our TA set the cost floor for SWAPA to get a deal and reject it, FDX to get a TA and pass it, and UAL to move up without having their costs out of line with the sector. The deals that pass help raise the corners of the house and the market has changed for the better since the deal, but IMHO none of that would have happened as quickly as it did if we did get to a TA, even if it was rejected.
Looking at profit, it should be noted that fuel is a savings of 5-6billion this year or 2/3rdds of the PTIX from last year. If our ability to price is the same we should be making 12-14 billion but we are not. Its still asinine money at the current profit level, but pricing power has ebbed a bunch. If fuel spikes and the ticket prices do not reflect the passthrough, the profit numbers will become effected. Duh!
If you look at FX (Foreign Exchange) DAL has over a 700 million dollar hit for the fact that the US Dollar is the strongest currency and they have lost pricing power overseas.
If you read the twitter comments from the EFA briefing that was given at the MEC meeting it paints a picture of what I saw last summer, not horrible but sluggish for the sector. DAL is a shining star, but they compete with these other carriers that are not performing as well, nor are they as deleveraged at DAL. IMHO, the last thing DAL wants is to go through a concessionary period again with its pilots, pushed a little too far with us, and we reacted. They do not want us to be a competitive advantage for other companies. They have stated clearly they want us to be top of the industry on costs, but only to a certain level. We as a group are willing to say no and fight for more.
It would have been nice for more than 55% of the pilot group to take the first survey and say that. Note that 55% of those that took the survey which was close to that number is in the low 30%. See a theme here? If you didn't take the survey the first time, it may have led to that willingness not coming through.
DAL is in a great position to whether the downturn that generally happens after a new US president is elected, and will likely remain well in to the black. What may change is DAL's willingness to add costs in that softening, if/when it occurs.
Yes, we "deserve" everything we are asking for, and quite frankly, this was not where our pilot group was a year and a half ago. With fuel going down as sharply as it did, I suspect it rose expectations much faster than the polling may have indicated. It still does not mean that DAL would have agreed to higher costs, but it does mean that the MEC would have been in a better position rejecting it.
Like I said, I am happy to discuss my rationale on any vote. Give me a call.
2) I wrote the resolution to get the last BOD to review the president's annuity to that, if you came from a carrier that did not have a pension or an annuity, you got what you had at your carrier. IE a 401K. FDX is the only carrier out there that has a pension which is not frozen that is part of ALPA. The MEC passed it, it was sent to a review committee and their recommendations were presented and debated in Delegate Committee 1. They changed some of the tax stuff but my desires for this to get reworked did not happen. If I was still a rep, I would have written a resolution before this last MEC meeting, submitted it for MEC approval and started the process again. Why? Its the world we live in today and its the right thing to do.
3) I could write a book on why my final decision was to send the TA to you, but most do not want to relive the past and I respect that. It was not a home run, nothing close, it was a very difficult decision for many members of the MEC. We sent the NC back multiple times for more, and the company refused to move every time. They would not even let us move gains in to the pillars. To me that was telling.
It was TAed and which surprised me. At the end of the day, we elect the committee to be the ones in the room. The company was done, and if we were going to go down the road we are now traveling down, the pilot group had to willfully decide that. The data we had was not clear on this and the recommendation from the parliamentarian lawyer who has been doing this for 60 years was, leverage in this situation comes from the membership.
I conferred with the committee, the professional negotiators and a myriad of others. To a person given everything they saw and experienced we were in a spot where the pilot group needed to decide the path. If there was any way that turning this back at a very split MEC was going to yield better results I and some others would have done that. I recommended a "yes" vote because given everything I witnessed, and discussed with many reps, and others, there was no better deal in 48 hours or six to nine months away. My feeling was absent this deal, we would see the upheaval we have, loose many months at the table and find ourselves downrange quite a bit before talks seriously resumed. So far DAL has done everything they said they would do with a rejection of that deal. I was hoping that was a bluff, but so far its not. I wasn't going to rely on hope as a rep.
What it wasn't was a gamble on my political future, nor me giving up. I will not get in to polling data, etc, but I will state that I wanted more data and called for it in the April special meeting. It wasn't done. We didn't disregard what we had, not at all, and the concerns the pilot group had are the same ones many reps did. Turning this back 11-8 or 10-9 was not going to lead to a better deal and that is where we were. Given the significant resistance from the company it would have been a push at 19-0 No from the MEC. I mean that. Nothing is stronger than a pilot group down vote. Its leverage but it has to be used strategically. The negotiation was not pleasant at all. We said no to many things that would make what came in the TA seem like a walk in the park.
4) DAL's PRASM has been going down for many quarters. It was flat and no one else was near a deal. Like it love it or hate it, even in rejection our TA set the cost floor for SWAPA to get a deal and reject it, FDX to get a TA and pass it, and UAL to move up without having their costs out of line with the sector. The deals that pass help raise the corners of the house and the market has changed for the better since the deal, but IMHO none of that would have happened as quickly as it did if we did get to a TA, even if it was rejected.
Looking at profit, it should be noted that fuel is a savings of 5-6billion this year or 2/3rdds of the PTIX from last year. If our ability to price is the same we should be making 12-14 billion but we are not. Its still asinine money at the current profit level, but pricing power has ebbed a bunch. If fuel spikes and the ticket prices do not reflect the passthrough, the profit numbers will become effected. Duh!
If you look at FX (Foreign Exchange) DAL has over a 700 million dollar hit for the fact that the US Dollar is the strongest currency and they have lost pricing power overseas.
If you read the twitter comments from the EFA briefing that was given at the MEC meeting it paints a picture of what I saw last summer, not horrible but sluggish for the sector. DAL is a shining star, but they compete with these other carriers that are not performing as well, nor are they as deleveraged at DAL. IMHO, the last thing DAL wants is to go through a concessionary period again with its pilots, pushed a little too far with us, and we reacted. They do not want us to be a competitive advantage for other companies. They have stated clearly they want us to be top of the industry on costs, but only to a certain level. We as a group are willing to say no and fight for more.
It would have been nice for more than 55% of the pilot group to take the first survey and say that. Note that 55% of those that took the survey which was close to that number is in the low 30%. See a theme here? If you didn't take the survey the first time, it may have led to that willingness not coming through.
DAL is in a great position to whether the downturn that generally happens after a new US president is elected, and will likely remain well in to the black. What may change is DAL's willingness to add costs in that softening, if/when it occurs.
Yes, we "deserve" everything we are asking for, and quite frankly, this was not where our pilot group was a year and a half ago. With fuel going down as sharply as it did, I suspect it rose expectations much faster than the polling may have indicated. It still does not mean that DAL would have agreed to higher costs, but it does mean that the MEC would have been in a better position rejecting it.
Like I said, I am happy to discuss my rationale on any vote. Give me a call.
03-21-2016, 05:07 AM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,226
ACL,
Thanks for the response. I do have a few questions though:
1. Why spend 1.7M selling the crap out of it? If this is the best we were going to get, why not tell us, "this is short of what we deserve but it's all they will give us. It's up to you to decide?" The all out sales job, black shirts and down playing all the concessions doesn't align with what you're saying.
2. Sure PRASM may be coming down. It happens in a competitive market place as costs come down. Fuel was WAY down and Margins are skyrocketing. This is what adds to the bottom line. To only look at PRASM is a very selective and seems to serve the purpose of pushing an agenda--in this case having us believe the airline sector has peaked and profits are going to start going down. Again, this did not serve the pilots well. Margins are expanding and profits are skyrocketing.
Thanks again for your engagement, but what happened is significant and shouldn't just be washed over. This can't happen again.
On the other hand, welcome back.
Thanks for the response. I do have a few questions though:
1. Why spend 1.7M selling the crap out of it? If this is the best we were going to get, why not tell us, "this is short of what we deserve but it's all they will give us. It's up to you to decide?" The all out sales job, black shirts and down playing all the concessions doesn't align with what you're saying.
2. Sure PRASM may be coming down. It happens in a competitive market place as costs come down. Fuel was WAY down and Margins are skyrocketing. This is what adds to the bottom line. To only look at PRASM is a very selective and seems to serve the purpose of pushing an agenda--in this case having us believe the airline sector has peaked and profits are going to start going down. Again, this did not serve the pilots well. Margins are expanding and profits are skyrocketing.
Thanks again for your engagement, but what happened is significant and shouldn't just be washed over. This can't happen again.
On the other hand, welcome back.
03-21-2016, 05:07 AM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: 330 FO
Posts: 584
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
None of the training should be surprising at all. More eyewatering AE's will be coming. Duh.
It was part of the rationale used, you can disagree with it.
You also were one that spread rumors of vote trading, and quite frankly, you got used, because I wasn't the one vote trading.
It was part of the rationale used, you can disagree with it.
You also were one that spread rumors of vote trading, and quite frankly, you got used, because I wasn't the one vote trading.
I'm not understanding this. Part of the rationale used for what? Giving the company LCA trip drops? On that topic, ACL, can you answer this:
In your opinion.....True or False:
LCA trip drops would only have affected 2% of F/Os?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
