Shiz,
Here is 0, 300 and a 100 pilot reduction.

http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/a...id/temp7-8.png

The 2010 data of a 1.528B pay comes from BTS and SEC data per airlinefinancials.com, I just added the pay raises for the PWA and TA.

The 2013 number was off on the TA because I only did a 4% increase over 2012 to 2013, so I added back another 1% to match payraises plus DC.

Reracked, it's not cost neutral if those 91 CR2s cost $14M or more.

Now why just use 300? Because frankly, if we're being sold this TA and being told it reduces the number of pilots then I have to believe we're reducing more than 300 even if we make up 72 or 100 or 200 pilots at best elsewhere.

76, I have no idea what alfa wrote. But about the 4% for the PWA, I put that in the notes on that first slide.

p.s. I added the 4% to see what this is gaining us YOY if we kept our current trajectory which you could argue 4% raise over that time period could very well happen on a rejected TA that doesn't forfeit jumbo RJ scope. I did that because I am not one to want to compare our 2015 pay to someone elses 2012 pay and call that a win under the assumption they never ever get a raise for 3 years.

FTB, you are flat out wrong and bordering on out of line on your "chart".

If no hiring occurs and the company decides to keep everything at the status quo (meaning no 717's or other aircraft acquisitions):

The first six months of the TA will cost the company somewhere in the neighborhood of 60-75 million.

The first year past the amendable date will run roughly 4 times that amount against the current PWA.

By the 2015 numbers are in play the value to Delta pilots PER YEAR will be in the 420-440 million range more than the current PWA.

Add it up and in 3.5 years it is worth over a BILLION dollars to Delta pilots.

Seriously, Alfa is right. Just say you'll vote NO to any more large RJ's in any TA presented and you'd keep a lot more credibility.

The twisting and spinning of inaccuracies isn't helping you or anyone else for that matter.

He's right, though.

At least the underboob posted here is real. Isn't it?

He can't, but Bill ain't gonna admit it.

NW has had two Captains over 12 and a Pacific operation where it mattered. DL might have had the former but not the latter until the merger. Thanks NW pilots.

Bush said he wouldn't allow it, and it didn't happen. Throw in all the rules you want, if a President says it in public, like the quote I found Carl, it won't happen. His buddies in Congress can put a stop to it too. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Too big to fail, too big to strike.

If we've given up enough productivity improvements (ALV/TLV + 2, ALV +15, +1 Short Call, 30 day months in summer, loss of 5% (33% of total) of profit sharing - approx 2% of pay at current profits and 4-5% if profits increase to below 2.5 Billion) to make it cost neutral then all we're doing is working harder for more pay. While in the past when DAL was very profitable the concessions (it is a negotiation, as they say) were minimal and the pay increases were large. I predict that in 2014 (not 2015) guys will look at this the same as POS 96 and be just as angry.

Using the no reduction in staffing table, I got $32M. That is just for 2012 and is a 4% increase for 6 months. If I did it for the year I'd get $60M.

BTW, going forward on this post I'm not going to assume hiring happens because if the TA doesn't require it so my numbers don't add it unless I mention they're added.

You get 4x and I get 5x. You pick. But we started at a different number. If you look at the chart I posted 2013 TA vs 2012 PWA (not the differences 3rd column but actually just subtracting 2012 PWA from the 2013 TA) and you get $178M. Or 5x the $32M.

Is that with or without hiring? I got $291.

So using the $291M, if you add in 700-900 717 pilots averaging $165K/ea (12 yr A and 6 yr B in 2015) it brings my $291M up by $115M to $149M. Or a total of $407M to $440M.

So I agree $410-$440M is possible, but not required if hiring is not required. If we had just done a hard hull count on nb mainline aircraft this would be a different story.

If you look at the difference of each year of the TA on my chart vs 2012 on the chart it comes up to $735M. A little lower than over a billion but again add the hiring and it comes up to nearly $900M.

So do you still feel the numbers are way off? I am more inclined however to use the chart reducing staffing by 300 pilots and not adding hiring. I can absolutely rerack the numbers and see if you and I come up closer.

Shiz... you and I do not have to go down the road of posting like a 50 year old on FPL with a helmet fire.

You and I despite being on the opposing sides of this TA are far better able to have an open and honest conversation about this TA and I welcome it. FWIW, the right way for someone to handle opposing data is to post their own. No commentary needed. Just the numbers and the assumptions they're based on. Slow actually does this pretty well... at times. It allows for a conversation and sharing of info and molding assumptions.


But remember we're the buyers, they're the sellers, running numbers off places like airlinefinancials.com or BTS/SEC data is the nearest thing we have to consumer reports.

That's what I am doing. I don't like the 325 number but beyond that I'm stress testing this TA and in this case trying to answer the questions on this thread as to whether this TA is cost neutral or not? That's where I added in the talk about the CR2 leases because if you factor in what they save there and our undeniable pay increases I think you could make a case that it is possible to make this cost neutral based on the most detrimental assumptions that this TA allows.

Is it cost neutral for us? Not in terms of pay, but staffing and outsourcing issues added in I don't think it is neutral, I think it's less. That's imho looking at the same numbers in the same TA and basing that off the trajectory the jumbo RJs are on given the lack of a hull count minimum for mainline aircraft.

wce.