Originally Posted by Flytolive (Post 1214448)

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.

Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg (Post 1214466)

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.

Originally Posted by bill lumberg (Post 1214466)

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.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1214470)

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.

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1214598)

I think we are the ones selling the car, not buying IMHO.

WDE back at ya. We will have to agree to disagree on how numbers are derived. (I think I'm right though!:p)

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1214633)

As in the union is the one selling the car to the pilots group?

If you meant that, then yes, you are correct.



http://images.wikia.com/familyguy/im...f/Salesman.jpg

Last chance offer! It must go now!! There may never be another!

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1214654)

We are trying to sell our "car" to DAL management... If we price it too high they will walk.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1214658)

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1214654)

We are trying to sell our "car" to DAL management... If we price it too high they will walk.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1214489)

rules are the rules and they can only stop it for 60 days. After that, it takes an act of congress :D and there is a reason that is used as a punchline.