Originally Posted by TheManager

Sorry...not yelling. It was hard to type and I left it that way for consistancy. Side note. Tired of going to the pharmacy and having them double check my copays because they are so out of whack. My SWA neighbors pay a fraction of what we do for medical. I got some ideas on that as well.

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

Ad Lib's point was that regardless of management's money bag, our union should be focused on basic positions. Inviolate principles which form the foundation of our bargaining.

Principles like not sacrificing one member to benefit another member.

With such a foundation, you have unity. With real unity, a union has power.

We have conundrums. Some want to decertify ALPA when by most objective measures our MEC has done an excellent job on behalf of Delta pilots. Our contract leads similar pilot groups, so why the displeasure? The answer is that we err by internalizing the allocation of management's money bag. Is it any wonder that some want to decertify our union when our union has made the rational decision to sell their interests for another member? After all, if you're the guy who's getting sold out, it makes sense to try to push out the union.

If our MEC would adopt some basic principles which would assure members that they will never be sacrificed, that would go a long way to demonstrate basic fairness which would build unity. As our union's founder once said "When one of us has a problem, we all have a problem."

Originally Posted by slowplay

I understand your point of view. You seem to believe that we could have been a merged airline with one contract/seniority list and worked off an amendable date of 12/31/09. I see it very differently, as I don't believe management would have taken the collaborative route as bad as the industry economics looked in 2008. I think we'd have had a traditional merger, with the south guys having a 12/31/09 date and the north somewhat later. I think we'd have had a bunch of pilots on furlough, as none of the "labor harmony" would have existed to push management to a correct decision. I think we'd have missed out on two years of pay increases and substantial merger equity. I think we'd have been at war internally because we'd be operating under two different contracts at two separate subsidiaries for a much longer period of time.

I understand that my view is hypothetical. I believe your view to be wishful thinking, in that no merger has ever worked as you envision. Of course, no merger has ever worked as ours has turned out so far, so I must allow the possibility that you could be right!

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44

Our job is to put a gun to the company's head and make them put more money in the bag.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

Carl seems to be around, but not posting......

Originally Posted by Mesabah

Any rigid contract you have, like pilot contracts for example, will not withstand the test of time. It is a law of mathematics that anything that has finite resources can not undergo percentage based increases without eventually becoming exponential. In other words, the current delta contract will eventually be gutted, there may be gains first, but that only guarantees a larger fall in the end. It is how the union responds and manages the career expectations of the pilots while the contract is being gutted that defines the capability of the union. This is really the problem is it not? It's not that pilots are paid badly(although some are) that makes them miserable, it's that they are not where they expected they would be in this career.

I would like to see the union bring the career expectations of the pilots more in line with reality, this involves moving the top and bottom of the list much closer together. Selling out the junior guys to preserve something that is mathematically impossible in the first place is ridiculous, and needs to stop.

Originally Posted by slowplay

OK, now we're getting somewhere....

How about drawing a chart of Free Cash flow and profitability and compare it to various airline contracts over the last 10 years...

It ain't all about the leadership. That plays a big part. But you're starting to break the code.

Oh, they paid cash while we're $17 billion in debt. Compare that and DAL's interest service to our peers. Maybe you can come to some more logical conclusions!