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.

If anyone is wondering what back pedaling looks like, I present Exhibit A. :)

Where is the comments from congress saying they'd been asked by the President to stop the NWA strike and intended to do so?

It's one thing for a President to say it but the 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.

rotflmao!!!!!

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)

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!

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

LMAO!

Nice.:cool:

I happen to like the car I am driving and don't need to sell it. By all means walk. I will keep on driving.

FTB, according to my rep, at the meeting Linda Puchala attended, she said that many pilot groups thought they were operating from a position of strength because of the inertia of congress and their apparent inability to act decisively. She said, put that thought out of your head. Legislation putting Delta pilots back to work has already been written and is waiting to put us back to work in the event the NMB path takes us that far.

That is not to say we can't effectively reduce revenue to the extent that it becomes cheaper for the company to pay us v. accept the reduced revenue and reduced profit on that revenue.

Bottom line, it isn't about striking. It is about controlling revenue.

DAL mgmt: If you're reading this, we salute you. You have successfully managed to brainwash another DAL mainline pilot into thinking they're working for DELTA AIR LINES, now forever deserve to be paid industry average, providing industry leading sacrifices.

There are so many derogatory nicknames for Chatauqua (sp?), I assume because it is an odd-ish name in its own right (and not because it is a particularly bad outfit), but could we come up with a standardized derogatory nickname for them instead of the seemingly hundreds floating around.

IMO this is more important than posturing on the TA at this point.

I, 80 knots of CLMP origin, propose that "Shaniqua" be the official nickname of Chatauqua airlines, a shell operator of Republic Airlines holdings and forever carved out and exempt of scope violations in our TA's section 1.

That is patently untrue. My DTW reps were also there and NOTHING even close to that was stated by the NMB. Nothing. But thanks for the continued parroting of a management wish.

Carl

Padre, why would they have the language written if we're far from the amendable date much less from mediation, arbitration, cooliation, PEBiation, but not stagnation? Do you think the rep was dropping the fud card?

Did NW fly >12 hour flights with 2 Captains prior to the merger? Did NW used to have Orient in the name because their very roots are in the Pacific where most 12+ hours flights are required? Was DL's presence in the Pacific negligible prior to the merger? You are as wrong about this as most things in your 9,000 I'll-informed posts. Tell your buddy to get a copy of the ltr. from CAL mgmnt regarding their DAL + $1 offer. In it they include caveats regarding implementation issues with many of the DAL PWA work rules et al.

It is amazing to realize that someone who is so ill-informed feels they have so much people need to hear on such a forum, but then again you're a pilot and a "Professional" at that.

Cut the attitude and the personal attacks.


NW's post bankruptcy contract only required 1 captain and 3 FOs for flights over 12 hours. They were still configuring their staffing for that, though. That changeover stopped with the DL merger and going to our staffing methods (2 CA's and 2 FO's for over 12).

Pre-merger, DL flew to NRT, PVG, and ICN.

NW had a negligible presence in Central America, South America, and Africa (also only flew to a handful of European cities) pre-merger... what's your point? The merger completed the route network of both carriers, and now it is paying off greatly.

I don't remember a similar admonition for your buddy so I will take this one for what it is worth.

Thanks for the confirmation.

[QUOTE=padre2992;1214671]. Legislation putting Delta pilots back to work has already been written and is waiting to put us back to work in the event the NMB path takes us that far.

QUOTE]

Chances of that being a true statement probably approach zero.

That said, so what if true, Congress is just about as dysfunctional as it gets, just like some other organizations I can think of.

What's amazing is you state you don't care, but you keep coming back. I'll tell ya what. Since you're a UAL pilot, YOU post a copy of the agreement on here. You prove me wrong. I already posted a quote from a Continental pilot disproving your claim. So show me I'm wrong. I'll glady eat crow if I am.

Plus, I highly doubt you've read all 9000 of my posts. You probably should though. You might actually learn something. ;)

It's funny how you call me ill informed. You've been proven wrong multiple times but you can't admit it. You come on our TA forum and chastise anyone who disagrees with you. You call yourself a true unionist, but you're willing to toss your fellow ALPA brothers and sisters flying those 70 seat RJs out on the street. :D

That you were wrong and ill informed? yep! :)

No that NW was flying 12+ flights with 2 Captains when the merger and JCBA occurred. I appreciate all the extra details.

I think I've found another internet troll that I can put on my ignore list...

NW was shifting to 1 captain over 12 hours and was on its way to completing that. The only thing stopping it from happening quicker was they couldn't train the replacement pilots fast enough.

The merger with DL saved that from being taken to completion.

Johnso,

Please feel free to show me where I have misspoken.

Here is a VERY clear case in which you were completely incorrect. And you are a moderator? Pretty hight standards here too, eh?

March 17, 2010
Continental
Airlines
Captain Jay Pierce
CAL MEC Chairman,
Air Line Pilots Association, International
3808A World Houston Parkway
Houston, TX 77032

Re: Company Proposal for a Successor Pilot Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA")

In a recent press interview you gave (Ted Reed, "Continental Has Deadline for Pilot Contract," TheStreet.com, February 18, 2010) and in your own MEC News (see, "Chairman's Update," February 5, 2010) you indicated that Delta Airlines provides a template for Continental. You have said that our situations are the same and that Delta's current pilot working agreement (the "PWA") provided the "gains and improvements" necessary to get and keep pilot support. Indeed, reviewing your remarks, one could easily conclude that the Delta PWA is the best legacy airline contract in the industry.

Because the Delta PWA is a post-merger, post-concessionary pilot agreement at a legacy carriert hat is also the world's largest airline, it will likely set the pilot contract standard for years to come. A review of ALPA's December 9, 2009 opening economic proposal to the Company demonstrates that there are a large number of areas within that proposal that are either based on or expressly reference the Delta PWA. As a result, we reviewed the PWA and concluded that Continental can operate under an effectively identical agreement. Thus, we are prepared promptly to enter into a successor collective bargaining with ALPA that is substantially identical to the terms and conditions of the Delta PWA.

In reaching this conclusion, we have also carefully considered the alternative. We have weighed the fact that it has taken ALPA two and a half years to compile and propose an exceptionally complex and comprehensive opening economic proposal that nonetheless still has a number of substantive items open. Despite its complexity, that proposal remains only conceptual, lacking specific contractual language. We have also considered the considerable period of time it would take to negotiate and craft specific contractual language that is fair to the pilots and fair to the Company. Even if we had no significant disagreements over terms of that opening proposal (a highly unlikely circumstance given the excessive increase in costs it contains), negotiating and refining ALPA's current proposal into to a final executable agreement is a task that would clearly take a very long time.

The Company believes that the Continental pilots should not have to wait until negotiators plow through hundreds of complex, and as yet unrefined, proposals. Furthermore, given the economic conditions and the constraints on the Company's ability to dramatically increase costs, we would be unlikely to reach an agreement that is richer than the current Delta pilot working agreement that you and your ALPA colleagues have cited as the model for ALPA and the Company.

Therefore, Continental proposes the following:
Effective as of January 1, 2010, replace the current CAL Pilot CBA with the terms
of the October 30, 2008 Delta PWA, with only 2 exceptions*:
(1) Add $1 to each of the hourly pay rates set forth in the pay tables on pages 3-3
through 3-12 of the PWA; and
(2) Eliminate the provision allowing ALPA to appoint a representative to the
Company's Board of Directors.
In all other substantive respects the Company proposes adopting the Delta PWA as
the successor Continental pilot CBA.

* Of course, it will be necessary to modify or delete references that are inapplicable to the Company (such as provisions regarding former Northwest pilots) and make such other changes to conform the current Delta PWA to the unique circumstances of the Company's operations or as may be required for logic, consistency or common sense.

In order to achieve a timely successor CBA, the Company proposes an expedited negotiation process for an implementation agreement that would address issues arising from adopting the PWA as discussed above and transitioning from the current CAL CBA to the terms of the Delta PWA. A proposed agreement for that negotiation process is attached.

The Company believes that this proposal meets the needs of both the Continental pilots and the Company in a straightforward and expedited way. We hope that the CAL MEC will carefully consider this proposal with the seriousness and good faith in which it is made.

Sincerely
Mike Bonds
Senior Vice-President
Human Resources & Labor Relations

flytolive decidedly takes that round....

Edit: (regarding the UCH proposal to copy the DL TA).

Unregard....

1) The BOD member is important to have. You get to "see the comapny's poker hand" rather than having to guess.

2) The UCAL method would have placed the 757 fleet in the LNB category, NOT NOT with the 767 pay (WB). (ref. a current UCAL pilot from my old regional that I spoke with last thurs.)

I'll ask Flytolive and jungle the same questions:
Why are you meddling in DAL business when your own houses are in such disarray? Can either of you do something to raise the bar at your own airlines?

Funny you should ask! Not only have we been saddled with a scheise contract for the last five years -and negotiated by and voted on by nwa pilots with no cps guys getting a vote - but they then negotiated a LOA with a no strike clause for our first Section 6! And then DALPA kicked us out of their MEC. Looks like you guys don't particularly want us raising the bar -much better to shut up and keeping working hard down on massas plantation, amirite?

POINT Flytolive! Well done sir. I just sat down for lunch. :D

http://www.nashvillescene.com/imager...1a/EatCrow.jpg