badflaps

If you think about it, Delta played pick and choose with the Pan Am guys.

tsquare

How do you figure?

badflaps

You never saw any 74 guys on the list, did you?

Carl Spackler

Shiznit, your playing with words doesn't change the facts. Since Delta pilots aren't cutting the checks for C2012, there couldn't possibly be any cost to Delta pilots, neutral or otherwise. C2012 was a cost neutral contract to Delta. Meaning every gain we got in the contract was fully funded by cuts in other areas. That's what our union brought us to ratify before Section 6 even began during a hugely profitable year for Delta. It's not my opinion, it's Richard and Ed's opinion.

So that's why our MEC brought us a cost neutral TA to sign. Delta's profits weren't "truly" record. [face palm]

Delta 2010 profit=$593 million. 2011 profit=$854 million. 2012 profit=$1.1 billion.

This is the kind of silly spin that makes some of you MEC led guys so lacking in credibility. You talk about a winter quarter in a year where we made over a billion dollars. Spin-credible!

Your MEC handlers haven't earned that kind of blind trust Shiznit. The process followed with the last TA was inexcusable. This new MEC has done the right thing by voting out the really bad actors in the MEC administration who were responsible for it, but trust is a long way off.

Carl

Carl Spackler

Well since you won't answer questions with anything but name calling and insults, I'll spell it out for you:

First you stated that if NRT needed to go bye bye in order for Delta to make more money, you say "sayonara." I asked that if it was really all about what makes Delta the most money, how about we furlough out of seniority the captains on dying airplanes (like your 767). Then you resorted to the insults. Here's the point:

Furloughing you out of seniority is not a "non-sequitor" or "stupid". It would actually make a ton of sense and make Delta a lot of money. The problem is that it's against our contract. It's the only thing that protects us from just this kind of thing that would make a company more money. The NRT slots are also contractual. Yet you're willing to say "sayonara" to them if it makes the company more money.

It is this level of thinking on your part that makes you so difficult to understand.

Carl

LeineLodge

Now you're the one spinning again (anyone surprised?) The bolded part above is absolutely NOT true. The contract is most certainly not self-funding.

What you are confusing (or more likely mis-representing) is the major savings that the company achieved were by accelerating retirements of the old RJ's rather than dealing with overhauling engines, heavy checks, high CASM, etc. I think you understand that, yet you continue to repeat this BS to further your agenda.

The often mis-represented comment about "cost neutral" was used during a conference call with investors [know your audience and what they want to hear.] Speaking about the business as a whole, they did say that costs are neutral. It's the same way they talk about capacity restraint. How is it that they can (truthfully) say that we're not expanding in a big way when we have 200+ mainline aircraft coming in the next few years? It's because they can "spin" their statements anyway they want - in this case including DCI reductions in their comments about maintaining the "network's" capacity discipline. Don't want to go scaring the investors now do we?

To further drive the point, if Delta mgmt were able to find a way to double your pay while achieving savings elsewhere in the business that exceed the raise you got, would it mean that we PAID the company for your raise? As self-congratulatory as you are regarding your business acumen, I'm surprised you can't differentiate between two un-related items on a balance sheet.

We did not even come close to paying for our gains with concessions elsewhere in the contract. For you to assert otherwise is grasping at straws.

Spin, spin, spin...


See above. [I'm also "face palming" ]


Here's an idea Carl. Stop telling me what's wrong with ALPA, and explain how DPA is going to come in on day 1 and:

1. Replace all the essential functions that ALPA is currently providing, without significant interruption

2. Improve my life significantly enough that it justifies the risk you are injecting in my career

WRT to the risk in #2, I see the chances as somewhere between slim and none that DPA can get us back to even, let alone make any appreciable gains, in an acceptable timeframe for me. The risk far outweighs the easily promised (yet hard to deliver) reward of what you're selling.

^^^^ Queue Carl to come back and tell everyone that I'm selling fear, when in fact one only need look at USAir to see the an example of the risk v. reward playing out in real life^^^^^

dalad

Carl, I actually agree with you about defending our contract. If the company wants to draw down NRT they need to replace it with an equal amount or greater of guaranteed jobs. IE, no pay raise for giving up NRT unless it's in addition to saving the jobs.

Carl Spackler

You've pulled this completely out of your backside. Totally made up numbers. Our contract was completely cost neutral to Delta Air Lines. That is unarguable. Not my words, it's the words of Richard and Ed.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about and you have to resort to the MEC spin. You're not in a position to know anything about what you've written. Delta management is. And Delta management has said over and over again that C2012 is cost neutral to Delta Air Lines.

Carl

LeineLodge

See my edited post above regarding their comments to investors.

Apologies for editing while you were replying...

Carl Spackler

The problem with that is defining "addition to saving the jobs." It's like the MEC saying that adding 70 new jumbo RJ's was actually a scope win.

The company needs to be held to the exact language of the contract. Operate those NRT slots...every single one. If not, then hold them to their only other contractual option which is to end the Joint Venture. The contract language we have was written and negotiated for just this reason. The fact we're even discussing modifying it for some difficult to define gain is troubling.

Carl