Two words. Cheaper. Better.

I can't imagine it being any more or worse than it is now. The regionals have better coverage and it's half the cost as ours! :rolleyes:

item number 143 to get fixed asap ;)

The problem is medical inflation. I think the company is rightfully terrified about the cost of even routine medical procedures nowadays.
The doctors and hospitals and lawyers and insurance companies and drug companies, etc, etc, are totally out of control.

If medical costs are rising at 7% a year, maybe Delta should raise their prices 7% a year... oh right.

We're an airline - we can't raise our prices to compensate for increases in our material costs, like every other business out there.

What you are wrong about is the motivation behind the distribution method. Nothing was done for "political cover" it was about fairness. Hypothetically, under the DB plan you could accumulate years of service and a yearly salary of $1 (this is deliberately exaggerated) . That would mean each year of service would net you $0.024 (2.4% x $1) of yearly retirement income. If you then worked hard your last three years and earned $200,000 for an FAE then each year of service would now be worth $4,800 (2.4% * $200,0000) of yearly retirement income.

That is quite a magic trick for three years worth of flying. At Delta, we had some pilots that had already maxed out their income to the IRS limits ($205,000) including me, and so each year of my service was worth the maximum allowed. However, a junior pilot had not had the opportunity to max out their income, so their years of service were worth less than mine. Why should their retirement permanently be harmed because they hadn't hit their magic 3 years yet?

This change was not a matter of political expediency, this was a matter of fairness. You had some 1989 hires that were on Captain's pay leading up to the DB termination and 1991 hires that were on F/O pay. That is a pretty big gap on retirement funding for a short 2 years difference in service. I guess the MEC could have just said, "it sucks to be you" but instead they opted for a method that to me seems more fair, even though it reduced my potential note payout.

So you are correct that changes were made from straight calculations, but you are incorrect that they were made to be politically advantageous. Mostly, each pilot gets to look at the world from their own narrow viewpoint, but the MEC doesn't have that luxury.

I know you know this, but you have to rationalize the business you are in prior to having that ability. In ours there is always one airline that has slightly less overhead, and takes advantage of it. Capitalism.

We are also self funded. (DAL funds the plan above your contribution. UHC only manages the plan for us. They are paid a fee for this)

The reason we pay so much for Doctors etc is simple. Health Care Companies provide a ton of Medicare and Medicaide coverage. Their repayment is no where near that of the cost. Ergo someone needs to pay for it. That is you and your health care plan.

True, but any Joe Bag O'Doughnuts can cut costs (overhead). It takes real creativity to find new revenue and better revenue streams. I think the current DAL management falls into this group (so far). When they don't, it certainly makes for crappy contracts.

Agreed. If the new millionaires that want to enter this industry have higher bars for entry, we may see the ability to gain yield strength. (Ala no more Skybuse's, and Virgin America's)

Our guys are putting the right airplane on the right market. That can cause issues for non-reving, but I prefer that to the alternatives. The end game is that with the right aircraft we need to start charging the correct price and more importantly, STOP dumping seats 12 hrs prior to departure. The passengers know we do this and are waiting to buy. (You should hear them talk about how they wait to get these 100 dollar coast to coast tickets)

This is what is frustrating me now - the company has some great ideas in terms of routes (Africa for example) that could make lots of money. But some aren't paying off yet. Hopefully some of this investment in IFE and Wifi will pay off when people start traveling.

ACL mentioned that someone will have lower overhead and get more business - to a point. Remember Bethune saying "you can make a pizza so cheap no one wants it"? What is interesting is that the airlines that are doing well - really well - invest in their product and pay their employees well. Singapore, Cathay in the international market, and Southwest domestically. You don't see Southwest cutting much (although you can argue they don't have much to cut). But SWA doesn't go to the employees and say "well, we lost money the last two quarters - and our pay is at the top of the pack for pilots. You all need to take a pay cut, so we can be profitable." Nope - the management does what >good< management does - they go increase revenue. They don't make profits off the backs of their employees.

I think the DAL management is on the right track - the graph someone posted a bit ago gave me a lot of confidence in the future for the economy.

Now if the company makes money in the next year or two, hopefully we can point to what we, as pilots, have done to contribute to the success. And get our fair share of that success.