Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

Your teeth intact after my landing? . We had 2 computer faults we were working when you walked on board. They immediately went away. It appears you are the airbus whisperer.

Originally Posted by buzzpat

I need to chat with him....my PAs sound like the NPR ladies on SNL.

Originally Posted by RonRicco

I don't have time to get into a long drawn out debate, but to hit a few points..

I am not saying I agree with how they are spending all the cash, buy backs etc, but I guess in their opinion that contributes more to shareholder wealth than buying a new fleet of aircraft. Doesn't mean I don't want them to, but I, nor the union get to make those sorts of decisions at any airline.

As far as leverage, I agree that BOB and others have been effective tactical moves to make gains... Just as we have made gains during those times. I was talking more in the context of section 6 and the ability to extract all this "extra" money that would have certainly gone to us otherwise right? When comments are made about "no money left on the the table" what else is one to infer except that if we would have just done "x" they would have had to give it to us.(and I am certainly not saying they wouldn't, just I haven't seen many examples of that happening in recent section 6 otherwise we would already have several airlines to jump in 2015.)

Excuse the grammar, spelling etc... Typed from an iPhone.

Originally Posted by newKnow

You know, this might be a business opportunity. 80 could start a "How to make PA's that make the flight attendants swoon." school for pilots. I bet the new Elvis could come up with done good marketing pics.

Originally Posted by scambo1

I am required, because of agency shop, to pay dues to an organization that does not completely look after my interests. I am not proposing that there is a better CBA out there either, just stating a fact as I see it.

Originally Posted by Herkflyr

This is such a general statement that it is hard to oppose. How do you define "completely"? Are you saying that if you personally (and you--and I--are just one of thousands) did not get every little thing that you did wanted, that therefore your union leadership is wanting? If so, then you will be sorely disappointed regardless of the name of your bargaining agency.

Sometimes I am reminded of pilot A who will say, full of conviction, "If concessions are ever needed, just give up pay. Once given up, you can't ever get back work rules, and the IRS still hasn't figured out how to tax a day off."

Then pilot B will immediately chime in and reply "BS! Work rules don't pay the mortage. Work rules don't buy the groceries. Work rules don't get my kid into the better schools, etc. Only pay will. If you have to give something up, give up work rules."

I have heard exact point/counter-point conversations just like this. What is a union to do with a finite pie, but infinite expectations of the membership?

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

Ron Ricco,

My concern about dividends, or stock buy backs, is that those choices mean there are no better choices to deploy that capital. That means upgrading the inefficient mainline narrow body fleet (and the 717 will, on date of arrival be near the bottom of the industry in efficiency). That means we aren't spending the money on right sizing our international fleet with an aircraft like the 777-300 in significant numbers. It means we are not going to make any competitive moves which might require an investment in that market. It means we will continue to pay interest on 10 billion dollars or so in borrowing. In other words, it means the Company has no better idea what to do with cash than to give it away, plus ~ 8% interest.

I am encouraged that Delta has the available cash flow to fund what would be a "capital project" in either a pre merger NWA or DAL.

IMHO this dividend is a bit like winning a yacht race. It is bragging rights to a couple of rich buddies, but doesn't sell widgets.

The one tin foil hat scenario that makes some sense is that we are pumping the stock price in advance of a stock-swap type acquisition. That potentially could be a smart use of throwing cash out the window, priming the pump to leverage the market to make an acquisition relatively cheaper on an exchange basis.

If that theory is actionable it does nothing good, or bad, for us in an SLI that I can see.

Originally Posted by Herkflyr

This is such a general statement that it is hard to oppose. How do you define "completely"? Are you saying that if you personally (and you--and I--are just one of thousands) did not get every little thing that you did wanted, that therefore your union leadership is wanting? If so, then you will be sorely disappointed regardless of the name of your bargaining agency.

Sometimes I am reminded of pilot A who will say, full of conviction, "If concessions are ever needed, just give up pay. Once given up, you can't ever get back work rules, and the IRS still hasn't figured out how to tax a day off."

Then pilot B will immediately chime in and reply "BS! Work rules don't pay the mortage. Work rules don't buy the groceries. Work rules don't get my kid into the better schools, etc. Only pay will. If you have to give something up, give up work rules."

I have heard exact point/counter-point conversations just like this. What is a union to do with a finite pie, but infinite expectations of the membership?

Originally Posted by scambo1

No offense to Elvis, but I think Gunshipguy should be our marketting department...