Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1528956)

Consensus of what, how to vote, or outcomes that would provide the least harm?

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1528956)

Best course of action would have been a resignation.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1528956)

You ever call and ask why Nestor did not appear on the first letter? It was not for a lack of concern.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1530035)

You argue against it acl. You specifically argue against restoration. You mock even the attempt to restore.

Carl

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1528983)

The recall should never have happened.

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1528983)

KR should have resigned.

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1528983)

In my memory he's the first MEC Chair at DAL to force a recall vote...GH, BS, and CG all resigned when it was clear they'd lost the support of the majority of the guys they worked for.

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1528983)

KR took it to a vote. Why?

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1528983)

Post recall his answer was pure politics... he wanted blame and division, not what was best for Delta pilots. "Bloody fingerprints" and all. No wonder Carl misses him.

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1528983)

I've gone back and looked at the various council comm again. I see a majority of reps articulating performance reasons for recall. I see the minority practicing the politics of personal destruction. No facts. No performance evaluation. Just high school student council finger pointing. Sure wish they'd raise their game.

Originally Posted by slowplay (Post 1528983)

There's an election coming up in a couple of weeks. It'd be nice if the MEC would collectively look forward for all our best interests.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1529024)

Index,

Wish that Sonny McDowall and Hollis Harris were still around to talk to. Prior to the ratification of Contract 2000, there was relatively open discussion that the agreement would never be honored. For a variety of reasons, chiefly under advice from McKinsey Consultants, Delta was going to reorganize in bankruptcy. Delta had no more intention of honoring Contract 2000 than United management had of honoring theirs. We really followed in United's footsteps, but did better both as a business and as a pilot group.

I always come back to the scope section because it is so easy to show, in fleet numbers, the unsustainability of the basic concept. In over simplified terms there were was a 3 to 1 mainline to RJ ratio. But, Delta had already ordered 500 mostly growth RJ's. Did anyone seriously think there was a 1,500 mainline jet order coming to keep up? That would have put Delta mainline at something around 2,100 jets (if memory serves, this was a long time ago).

This isn't to discredit the high water mark, but hopefully help folks understand that what pilots accepted as reality was something management had very little, if any, intention of honoring. For Leo Mullin, it was an interim placeholder which would be renegotiated in bankruptcy. ALPA took the heat from a lot of angles for the fact management entered into a deal with less than the best of intentions.

Notwithstanding this history, I expect we will see C2000 and the C2004 rates in C2015.

We need the rest of the industry to catch up if we are to ever restore our real earning power and QOL. That job requires a national union.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1529092)

Index,

I'm not on anyone's talking points. Slowplay and I are coming at the facts from an entirely different perspective. Slowplay and I could probably reach consensus on those facts if we compared notes. Delta has a fascinating business history that has never been written. Some authors have hit the corners with "Debunking the Delta Myth" and "Airline Without a Pilot." It is true Delta had a commanding market presence and was using it to leverage huge profits in the late 1990's. But Delta was also leveraging a huge bull run in asset prices which they relied on to underfund enormous pension obligations. When the market fell apart in 2000 - 2002 along with a wave of retirements, the promises made appeared very unsustainable quickly. McKinsey had devised a way to shift these obligations to the PBGC and was executing this plan at United. Under Ron Allen, McKinsey consultants began playing a central role in Delta's strategic governance.

Watch The Full Program Online | Can You Afford To Retire? | FRONTLINE | PBS

(the whole show it worth a watch, or jump to the Sections on United's Bankruptcy)

Richard Anderson's occasional references to very deep Delta history bring back memories of clear voiced honorable men who were aviation pioneers, incredible leaders and who would sit in the back row of the Presbyterian Church when on reserve. My sources on the topic had either moved on to run other airlines, or retired as Country Gentlemen, around the time Ron Allen. But they remained part of the "Delta family" with an intense interest in what was going on. They unanimously thought Delta would enter bankruptcy in mid 2005 and their prognostications were accurate within 6 months.

Another corresponding set of data points were coming a group of Comair pilots. Independently from any other sources, they were running the numbers and coming to the same conclusions as the group of retired Delta managers.

Of course this information would have been at complete counter purpose to the Delta pilots in the negotiation of Contract 2000. Slowplay's interest was, and is, to maximize the results for the Delta pilots.

The United Contract was much the result of ephemeral profitability and "choking the golden goose until it gave up it's last egg." After bankruptcy the unions which have survived are much more thoughtful about asphyxiating their poultry.

I get that some here are wanting "Mad Dog" Dubinski style negotiations. However, it seems unlikely that style is going to be any better at gaining us sustainable results now than it was then. We have learned and improved our game.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1529278)

What were the numbers for 2012, 2011, 2010?

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1529024)

Index,

Wish that Sonny McDowall and Hollis Harris were still around to talk to. Prior to the ratification of Contract 2000, there was relatively open discussion that the agreement would never be honored. For a variety of reasons, chiefly under advice from McKinsey Consultants, Delta was going to reorganize in bankruptcy. Delta had no more intention of honoring Contract 2000 than United management had of honoring theirs....

.....This isn't to discredit the high water mark, but hopefully help folks understand that what pilots accepted as reality was something management had very little, if any, intention of honoring. For Leo Mullin, it was an interim placeholder which would be renegotiated in bankruptcy. ALPA took the heat from a lot of angles for the fact management entered into a deal with less than the best of intentions.

Notwithstanding this history, I expect we will see C2000 and the C2004 rates in C2015.

Originally Posted by index (Post 1530149)

Is that the best you can come up with? I haven’t looked up the pretax numbers for 2010-12, but I assume they are slightly lower. My response to you is this. So what?

I stated that DAL is “in its best financial position ever” and that the time is “NOW” for restoration. Slow, in an attempt to lower others’ collective expectations, said “DAL was in better financial shape 1996-2000 (98 being the best year), which, he said "set the stage for C2K." It had better operating and pretax margins and a much lower debt.” He then challenged me to “please discuss from facts.”

I then posted the FACTS, including the reason (fuel prices, interest expense, etc…) that our pretax margins were lower (albeit only slightly) for the 1996-2000 timeframe. TheManager insightfully added that, given the current “it can be argued they [Delta] are doing much better now [than 1996-2000].” In short, the two of us showed that slow’s thesis was wrong. DAL is doing phenomenal right now (and that was my point), but this won’t last. That is why it is critical that we get our piece of the pie NOW!

Here’s the real issue, acl. Your problem, and you’re no alone, is that you’re not a true advocate for either this pilot group OR the profession as a whole. What you’ve failed to come to grips with is that you are a PILOT, not MANAGEMENT. I don’t know what it is that makes some PILOTS feel this way. Do the ALPA trip drops, hotel reward points, positive space passes to meetings, ALPA expense reports, ALPA vacation bank, hospitality suite, lavish dinners with the MEC front table on the ALPA credit card create some overinflated view of yourself that makes you think you’re MANAGEMENT?

There’s not a question as to whether or not there are two sides to this debate (restoration). There clearly are. The problem is that we seem to constantly hear only management’s arguments from BOTH management AND DALPA.

Here’s a sample:

“DAL is making record profits”
DALPA apologist: “not so, they’re not doing nearly as well as before”

RA pay went up 42% this year
DALPA apologist: “he’s worth every penny of it”

Restoration now!
DALPA apologist: “C2K was unaffordable. DAL had no intention of honoring it. They merely agreed to C2K terms to facilitate filing BR.”

Inflation has significantly eroded our purchasing power
DALPA apologist: “we can’t restore our pay rates in one contract…it’s going to take at least 2” [without ANY explanation as to why]

DAL is spending $1B ($ taken out of the pilot’s contract) on worthless stockbuybacks and dividends.
DALPA apologist: “This is money well spent. It will assure us a spot on the S&P 500, as well as lower the corporations borrowing costs.”

Restoration now!
DALPA apologist: "It's going to take AT LEAST 2 negotiating cycles" [again without ANY explanation how this "conclusion" was reached.]

There are SO many different ways that you could be advocating FOR the pilots instead of AGAINST us. The way to be an effective advocate for your client—the pilots---is to emphasize the points that justify restoration and minimize the reasons why restoration is not achievable. What you are doing right now is exactly the opposite.

If you want to be management, that's fine. Go do it. Just don't masquerade as a pilot advocate when you're not.

Originally Posted by index (Post 1530149)

Is that the best you can come up with? I haven’t looked up the pretax numbers for 2010-12, but I assume they are slightly lower. My response to you is this. So what?

I stated that DAL is “in its best financial position ever” and that the time is “NOW” for restoration. Slow, in an attempt to lower others’ collective expectations, said “DAL was in better financial shape 1996-2000 (98 being the best year), which, he said "set the stage for C2K." It had better operating and pretax margins and a much lower debt.” He then challenged me to “please discuss from facts.”

I then posted the FACTS, including the reason (fuel prices, interest expense, etc…) that our pretax margins were lower (albeit only slightly) for the 1996-2000 timeframe. TheManager insightfully added that, given the current “it can be argued they [Delta] are doing much better now [than 1996-2000].” In short, the two of us showed that slow’s thesis was wrong. DAL is doing phenomenal right now (and that was my point), but this won’t last. That is why it is critical that we get our piece of the pie NOW!

Here’s the real issue, acl. Your problem, and you’re no alone, is that you’re not a true advocate for either this pilot group OR the profession as a whole. What you’ve failed to come to grips with is that you are a PILOT, not MANAGEMENT. I don’t know what it is that makes some PILOTS feel this way. Do the ALPA trip drops, hotel reward points, positive space passes to meetings, ALPA expense reports, ALPA vacation bank, hospitality suite, lavish dinners with the MEC front table on the ALPA credit card create some overinflated view of yourself that makes you think you’re MANAGEMENT?

There’s not a question as to whether or not there are two sides to this debate (restoration). There clearly are. The problem is that we seem to constantly hear only management’s arguments from BOTH management AND DALPA.

Here’s a sample:

“DAL is making record profits”
DALPA apologist: “not so, they’re not doing nearly as well as before”

RA pay went up 42% this year
DALPA apologist: “he’s worth every penny of it”

Restoration now!
DALPA apologist: “C2K was unaffordable. DAL had no intention of honoring it. They merely agreed to C2K terms to facilitate filing BR.”

Inflation has significantly eroded our purchasing power
DALPA apologist: “we can’t restore our pay rates in one contract…it’s going to take at least 2” [without ANY explanation as to why]

DAL is spending $1B ($ taken out of the pilot’s contract) on worthless stockbuybacks and dividends.
DALPA apologist: “This is money well spent. It will assure us a spot on the S&P 500, as well as lower the corporations borrowing costs.”

Restoration now!
DALPA apologist: "It's going to take AT LEAST 2 negotiating cycles" [again without ANY explanation how this "conclusion" was reached.]

There are SO many different ways that you could be advocating FOR the pilots instead of AGAINST us. The way to be an effective advocate for your client—the pilots---is to emphasize the points that justify restoration and minimize the reasons why restoration is not achievable. What you are doing right now is exactly the opposite.

If you want to be management, that's fine. Go do it. Just don't masquerade as a pilot advocate when you're not.