Of course I am, but I stay away from the Dalpa board mostly. Talk about a viper pit! A bunch of grouchy meanies on there. I prefer the nice, laid back, family style board called APC. Ahhhhh, like a breath of fresh air....

Low and behold......The Circular Answer!

Amazing how whiny grown men can get on the internet. Like I stated, TT's response had to be made available, and he chose to not, so your thread was restored (ACL got to it first).

Feel better? :cool:

Tom Tucker insinuates that DALPA's MEC does not support this TA. He further highlights that Delta Negotiators negotiated with Top Delta Management and did not meet directed MEC objectives. In fact, the DALPA negotiating committee ink'd the DAL TA without reporting their failure to the DALPA MEC.

In 2005 the CAL negotiating committee willfully ink'd a concessionary contract. Six months later many Negotiating Committee and MEC members at CAL were recalled only to take management positions at Continental. Ie. The 2005 head negotiator for CAL ALPA is now a UAL contract negotiator.

Buyer beware, DAL has left a lot of money and leverage on the table by giving up Scope. American and US Air consolidation will bring further profits to Delta not recognized in this TA.

With this TA regional business models will not return to profitability.

Why?....Don't know the guy but in his answer he plainly stated that he is a DL pilot.

You know it is not cost neutral...why do you keep saying it? It's very odd.

If the company saves $100 (or a billion) somewhere on the balance sheet and then gives it to us...it is "cost neutral" to the company, get it?

Despite everything I have read, I refuse to believe you are so obtuse as to not understand the meaning of this; but feel free to keep posting this "cost neutral" nonsense if it helps you rationalize your "no" vote.

Carl doesn't get it. Never did and never will.

I don't see it as whiny.
He disagreed with the way you're handling your duties and he called you out on it.
When did that become whining?
Some people on here complain about ALPA all the time and you never have a problem with that.
What's good for the goose...

This was at the bottom of TT's letter: Why would it be unreasonable to think that TO's letter would not have the same restrictions? I think it was smart to wait for permission from both TO and TT before this feud gets aired here.

In the end, TO's letter is up and TT's by his request is not. It was less than 15 hours from the time Alfa posted it until it was back. It wasn't the end of the world.

Alfa's response however was whiny. Just say you have permission to post it, nobody would doubt that he would have permission, end of story.

Argue all you want with RA and Campbell. You just look foolish doing so.

Carl

Seeslap,

Understand that this is just another point where both sides are talking past each other. (Except, I think one side is doing it on purpose.)

When the question is asked, "Is this a cost neutral contract?" and the responding answer is, "Not for the pilots, it isn't!" it comes across as if the respondent is being purposefully evasive.

Everyone understands that we as a pilot group will be making more money from the contract. But, do you understand that some might want to know what the company is putting out outside of the savings from "elsewhere?"

I'm sure many will ask why, and to be honest with you, for me, it's because of the crappy answer that was given in the first place. (Not for the pilots, it isn't.) I hate evasiveness.

For others, it probably has to do with fairness. If it is cost neutral for the company, why couldn't they kick in a little "non balance sheet cash" to smooth things out? (You know the kind of cash they probably used to pay the other employee groups raises?[*see below]) 5/15/5/5 sound's and feels a lot better than 4/8.5/3/3 and gives off a little less of the nickle and dime feel of a payraise that parses things down to 1/2%. (8.5%)

Finally, for others still, it might come for the knowledge that the savings that the company is paying out to us to a certain extent is beneficial to both sides. Time value of money aside, and knowing that for the company time will mitigate some of the financial damage from losing the "deal," eventually the company will have to come up with a new agreement, and it will cost them some money from their own pockets then.

*It also would look better for some, since I don't recall anyone saying the pay raises the other employee groups got were cost neutral. Maybe, it's just a matter of principal for some people. Accept it for what it is. But, this is the skepticism that should be expected when the question is evaded when first asked.

I know I've asked the question on here before, and perhaps I just missed the response. I even think the question might have been answered in one of the recent NN's, but to be truthful, I'm swamped with the paperwork. So, maybe you can answer and you and Carl can get on the same page and avoid the name-calling.

Is this a cost neutral TA for the company?

Thank you New...good points made. But you are correct, this has been asked and answered in a lot of different ways in different places. The point for me is RA has many different audiences and many different messages to deliver. I don't care if he is factoring in the cost savings on crack spreads from the refinery deal amortized out over the decrease in 50 seat airframes in the system, I just care about what it means to me and I see gains in virtually every section.
The truth is RA could be telling Wall Street types that overall it is cost neutral, and then walk into the adjoining room and tell someone else that as a segment of the balance sheet "pilot costs" have increased $450 million...for Carl and others to insist that he is "lying" to one group is disingenuous at best, an outright prevarication at worst...and btw, I did not call Carl any names as I hate gophers and I respect his work in that area...(I did however infer that the bacon bits gent is somewhat obtuse and I shall stand by that pending further evidence)

alfa gets very emotional when he doesn't get his way. I called him out on that. To be quite honest, it's pretty dang funny but also pretty sad seeing a grown man behave like that.

When people complain about ALPA on here, people jump in to counter them. When people whine about ALPA on here, people jump in to counter them. That is the way it should be.

The pro ALPA people seem to think I'm pro DPA, and the pro DPA people seem to think I'm pro ALPA. How about those apples?


The fact is that TO's rebuttal shouldn't have been posted until TT had a chance to allow his to be posted on here. TT had his chance and due to DPA actions with his previous comments felt that it should not be posted on a public forum.

You're missing the point. RA is not lying, or being inconsistent in any way depending on his audience. Neither is Campbell. They are being very consistent, and that is to state that the new fleet changes and other items in this TA fully fund the investment in our employees. Not just the pilots of Delta, but the employees of Delta.

Admittedly, proper costing of contract items is often a place where both sides love to lie to each other. This was most evident in BK where management was claiming much lower costing for the same items negotiated just a few years earlier. From my own personal past experience, our very large work rule concessions nearly completely fund our pay rate increases. Now if we use the 717's and 739's as replacements of higher paying aircraft, that would make our TA totally gain neutral to pilots and cost neutral to management. If you add in the gains for not doing 50 seat RJ maintenance, that continues to make it gain neutral to pilots and actually cost POSITIVE to management. This is specifically why management is claiming our TA funds the investment in Delta employees. He doesn't just mean it funds the pilot's pay rate gain, it funds the gains given to the other employees as well.

Carl

If you are ****ing off both sides, then you are probably doing your job well. But, my standards are pretty low.

There will be no cost savings, this refinery will be a black hole and at some point DAL management will want pilots to pay for their mistake and DALPA based on past history will do so.

I get emotional, that's funny. What is wrong is you abusing your power. The fact is that the terms of service of this board did not prohibit posting the rebuttal. YOU ALONE decided what is fair and not fair. Your decision was based solely on your view that you want this TA to fail. You have no problem allowing one sided slanted lies that are spewing out of georgetg and the DPA crowd. Nope, that gets posted with no problem. In fact you take up with their falsehoods as if it were fact.

Now when something gets posted that doesn't fit YOUR STANDARD of fairness, then you delete it without any excuse other than you felt like it. You are just a hypocrite whose standard of fairness depends upon whether you agree with the side that is posting.

So what is sad is you abusing your power as moderator to control content you don't like. You are supposed to control content that is outside the terms of service of this board and not what you disagree with. You are nothing but a sad little hypocrite that is now trying to justify his actions with more bluster and attack.

I guess you forgot that when people were posting either the positive or negative portion of the C54 letters that I made sure that the missing portion was posted, didn't you?

Ah, whatever.. you're senior to me. Keep that blood pressure up!

Your emotional bluster and attacks are noted.

Too funny. Proving your hypocrisy and Clamp's point all in the same post.

Carl

Wow! Time to back away!

I tuned into this debate late.
Can someone please explain why TT gets to decide if TO's letter is posted on APC?

Seems like a stretch to me.

You are late.

TO's letter was posted.

I was hoping some experts would sound off on this refinery business, if you don't mind please expand on this analysis, I am very interested in the future prospects of this endeavor.

It should never have been deleted in the first place.

It was, and it was restored by me, and 80 would have done the same. Corrective action was made.

Not an expert, here is what Conoco said with a few comments:

“After exploring a wide range of alternatives for the refinery, the decision to sell is based on the level of investment required to remain competitive,” said Willie Chiang, senior vice president of Refining, Marketing, Transportation and Commercial. “U.S. East Coast refining has been under severe market pressure for several years. Product imports, weakness in motor fuel demand, and costly regulatory requirements are key factors in creating this very difficult environment. This action is consistent with our stated strategic objective to reduce our refining portfolio,” added Chiang.

They had and didn't want it, same so it seems with most other majors when it comes to refineries, which considering it is impossible to permit a new refinery must mean something. Refineries are environmental time bombs, as I recall Exxon couldn’t even give the Benicia Refinery away until they agreed to take care of any future cleanup in perpetuity. Hope DAL got the same guarantee on environmental in this deal. Apparently, refineries are always on the block for the same reasons, cyclically profitable and the least profitable part of the oil business at that, never ending capital intensive EPA related expenses on top of what is capital intensive to begin with. Seems the majors think there are better ways to make money in oil than in refining it. There ain't that much margin to be had and sometimes none, so how is DAL gonna save so much getting into refining?

But, none of that means anything, core competence means something and DAL ain’t got it in anything going on at Trainer, PA.