gloopy

While I tend to agree with this, just to play devil's advocate (I've heard this arguement and wasn't 100% sure how to refute it):

Getting to "investment grade" status (whatever that means, let's assume we are somewhat successful in doing that because of this buyback/dividend, etc) will get us better financing terms and other deals and save us as much or more than we "spend" on it. It will also enable DL to buy all or part of another airline(s) much cheaper relatively speaking. Basically, what T said above. I'm not discounting all of it, but I am highly skeptical that we will get 1B+ hopefull return from the guaranteed 1B outlay.

Again, I can't really wrap my head around that, because can we ever really save more in better financing rates because of this than we would simply paying down that much more debt in the first place? Are we leaving revenue on the table with our inferior/inadequate widebody fleet that we could bolster with this money instead, generating revenue?

From where I see it, best case this is a per merger paper shuffle if it plays out exactly as scripted. Worst case we will be down a billion bucks permanantly from where we could have been if we didn't do this. Woudn't an extra billion in reduced debt (6 instead of 7B?) and/or a more competitive widebody fleet and/or a superior product do more to make us "investment grade" than a scheme to lump in individual investors with pre programmed sector ETF's linked to other airlines, oil, the DOW, etc and throw money at all of them?

Also, as improved as our product has gotten, we need to do more work than we are doing or even have imminent plans for. I can see us succeeding in spite of this plan, but not because of it in any real way. What am I missing?

10B was supposed to be some magic debt number that triggered epic deals on financing and whatnot. OK, we are headed there, and supposedly down to 7. So lower is better, isn't 6B better than 7B?

Then it gets into the insane realm of LBO schenanagans, which I really don't even see how that junk is even legal. In any case, does buying back shares reduce our exposure to hostile takeovers and all that boiler room tomfoolery?

Jack Bauer

While the basis of your arguments sound good and should make sense....they don't with this union/pilot group.

After the merger the swirling sentiment among many of the guys at the time....work hard to run things efficiently and provide great customer service...it will pay off in the restoration contract of C2012 with the company being profitable. In my opinion the pilot group got bamboozled with a combined beat down of misleading info of tag team DALPA/Management. The proof is in the pudding as they say.

All the exciting news/rumors in the world (ie hiring soon, taking American jets and growing our South American operation with lots more hiring, growing our flying by purchasing a stake in Virgin Atlantic and GOL and GRUPO AEROMÉXICO with likely more to come... and now the epically exciting "We are aiming for investment grade status by giving money back to investors"..) has done nothing for Joe Delta Pilot. Prepare for the new message in C2015....sorry guys the money's already been spent....but atta boy for working so hard....we REALLY do appreciate all you do.

How much longer can the goodwill last and guys still lap up the crazy feel good statements about why everything above is so fantastic with no real payout? Just seems like some guys have either been 1. Sniffing crazy glue or 2. Have their own personal and/or union agenda, which is removed from the plight of the average line pilot at Delta Air Lines.

scambo1

[QUOTE=Herkflyr;1407489]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?[/QUOTE]


Response to the first bolded part: I'm not interested in semantic word games. I'm not "the great communicator." The question I would ask you is, based upon your (and my) limited grasp of what our fellow pilots put in their surveys, were they met in a way that cost the company more money (money for pilots)? My honest answer is: Not appreciably.

Response to the second bolded: In my perspective, the pie slice we recieved cost about what the previous pie slice cost, adjusted for inflation. The ingredients were just shuffled around...Despite what DALPA said it cost them...I'm not seeing it...Are you?

In your heart, and in all honesty, can you say that with this contract, we have benchmarked bankruptcy wages/benefits as the new normal? I believe we have...Huge DALPA strategic error going forward, IMO.

With the benefit of hind sight, do you believe we left money on the table? Lots of it? I do.

I can live with the contract that 68% voted for, but trying to blow sunshine is BS. We agreed to extend a concessionary contract (with some concessions added/ and some removed) for the addition of a narrowbody, which I believe was coming anyway. In the process, we have accepted bankruptcy wages as normal.

Someone asked in a later post if someone thought DALPA lied to them...I do. On this board, someone posted AF/KLM's contract synopsis after doing a google search...DALPA said they couldn't post those numbers for comparison because they were confidential... Where I come from, that's called lying. And I get to pay them 1.9% of my pay for that kind of effort on my behalf...

forgot to bid

finis72

It is very easy to Monday morning quarterback the 2012 contract and say there was money left on the table. Conversely it's very easy to say if we had voted down the contract we would still not have a contract or already be in mediation with the NLRB with United as the bar just about guaranteeing a less than desirable outcome. Could we have gotten more ?, possibly, could we have gotten less ?, possibly.
Scambo, you can call our rates bankruptcy or any other thing you want but in the eyes of the rest of the world including the NLRB our wages are Industry standard plus if not industry leading. I don't really like the post bankruptcy world but it is what it is and we can't turn back the clock. all we can do is keep trying to raise the bar. Singles and doubles will win a lot of games but hitting a homer while nice is a lot rarer.

Carl Spackler

Fixed it for ya.

Carl

Carl Spackler

They aren't Bar. Really, they're not. They don't even know or care what our interests are. ALPA national has their interests, and that's it. If your interests happen to coincide with theirs, then that's simply icing on the cake. A happy coincidence. Their prime directive is the fullfillment of their goals and their sustainment as an entity. Nothing else matters.

Carl

Carl Spackler

First of all, it was 62% - not 68%. 62% did NOT say it was good enough. 62% voted YES...big difference. DALPA completely mismanaged our negotiations, there can be little doubt of that left. The proof of that is most of the really bad actors in that drama are gone now.

Signing off on a deal without consulting the MEC, then handing it to the MEC for a vote as an already done deal needing a rubber stamp was a disaster. Many of the pilots who voted YES did so becasue they realized how completely outclassed our MEC leadership was, and it would be that same outclassed leadership that went back into the real Section 6 negotiations.

Carl

ShyGuy

So.............. is DPA happening?

Carl Spackler

Translation: I need to change the subject here, so I'll utilize the tried and true method of inferring that you have no right to an opinion unless you're doing ALPA work.

This is a complete misunderstanding of negotiations. If the other party is already willing to do something, there's no need for negotiations! Negotiations is the art of compromise between two sides who DISAGREE! Unreal man. You want to work for a company that is a willing partner and supporter of the gains we all want? That's literally delusional.

That's a clear synopsis of management's position. But we're labor! What about that don't you get? If you're fine working hard for your company in the hopes that some of the amazing success might trickle down to you, then that's your right. But I don't want that. I pay union dues specifically to keep myself away from trickle down corporate economics.

Our time to talk came and went, and our "union" didn't make that case. Our "union" took the very first offer from management even before Section 6 negotiations began. Our "union" did all that while our company was hugely profitable. Working for a profitable and successful company is great, but you need a union who actually cares about your increased expectations. This one doesn't.

Carl