Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
DAL Mgmt Asks Pilots for $ 1 Billion
- Thread starter Space Wrangler
- Start date
- Watchers 11
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
GL,
Let me just say that I hope there are no additional furloughes, and all your guys get back. All of the Delta guys I have talked to have expressed great concern about this concessionary deal and what the productivity changes will mean to the staffing levels. I wouldn't hold my breath if I was a furloughee, but thats just my opinion. Hopefully I'm wrong and the the early outs will balance it out.
Best of luck to you and all the Delta pilots.
Let me just say that I hope there are no additional furloughes, and all your guys get back. All of the Delta guys I have talked to have expressed great concern about this concessionary deal and what the productivity changes will mean to the staffing levels. I wouldn't hold my breath if I was a furloughee, but thats just my opinion. Hopefully I'm wrong and the the early outs will balance it out.
Best of luck to you and all the Delta pilots.
General Lee
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2002
- Posts
- 20,442
Flash 7,
I can see where you are coming from now, and I hope you are right. Sure, there is a lot of confusion right now, which is understandable. The senior guys are hoping for higher wages to help their possible future retirement, and the junior guys are hoping for some job security. Dalpa has got to find a happy medium. A lot of our senior guys with full retirement rights (25 years of service--over 53 years old) have and will be leaving soon to keep their hard earned retirement--and that will help some on the bottom. So far, Dalpa has stuck with the recall schedule---primarily due to the early retirements. Now Grinstein seems to want to go after the pensions---in some way or another--and lower the future costs to the company. This is something that HE WANTS---and he doesn't seem to want to budge. That isn't great news for the Senior guys----they can't try to substitute junior guys (more furloughs) for help with the pensions---since Grinstein seems so hell bent to change it. He also stated that he wants to increase the flying some 12-16% in the Fall and Winter--through rolling hubs etc...which would add to productivity. A lot of those guys you were talking to have their own agendas---which may not mirror Dalpa's. That could also be true with the junior guys as well. Sorry I was a little harsh with you.
Bye Bye--General Lee
I can see where you are coming from now, and I hope you are right. Sure, there is a lot of confusion right now, which is understandable. The senior guys are hoping for higher wages to help their possible future retirement, and the junior guys are hoping for some job security. Dalpa has got to find a happy medium. A lot of our senior guys with full retirement rights (25 years of service--over 53 years old) have and will be leaving soon to keep their hard earned retirement--and that will help some on the bottom. So far, Dalpa has stuck with the recall schedule---primarily due to the early retirements. Now Grinstein seems to want to go after the pensions---in some way or another--and lower the future costs to the company. This is something that HE WANTS---and he doesn't seem to want to budge. That isn't great news for the Senior guys----they can't try to substitute junior guys (more furloughs) for help with the pensions---since Grinstein seems so hell bent to change it. He also stated that he wants to increase the flying some 12-16% in the Fall and Winter--through rolling hubs etc...which would add to productivity. A lot of those guys you were talking to have their own agendas---which may not mirror Dalpa's. That could also be true with the junior guys as well. Sorry I was a little harsh with you.
Bye Bye--General Lee
General Lee
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2002
- Posts
- 20,442
Dizel8
Douglas metal
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Posts
- 2,817
This one!
"She really did have a large back side. But, weirdly enough---I couldn't stop staring at it! It had it's own gravitational pull---it had an equator, (and a PRIME MERIDIAN if you know what I am talking about!) and it rotated and had several flaps that hid goodies--like leftovers from last Thursday's Puerto Rican pork dinner!"
"She really did have a large back side. But, weirdly enough---I couldn't stop staring at it! It had it's own gravitational pull---it had an equator, (and a PRIME MERIDIAN if you know what I am talking about!) and it rotated and had several flaps that hid goodies--like leftovers from last Thursday's Puerto Rican pork dinner!"
General Lee
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2002
- Posts
- 20,442
jarhead
master of my domain
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2002
- Posts
- 1,162
Part 1 of 2
Bailout Feared if Airlines Shed Their Pensions
August 1, 2004
By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH
In an echo of the savings and loan industry collapse of the
1980's, the federal agency that insures company pensions is
facing a possible cascade of bankruptcies and pension
defaults in the airline industry that some experts fear
could lead to another multibillion-dollar taxpayer bailout.
"The similarities are incredible," said George J. Benston,
a finance professor at Emory University in Atlanta who has
written extensively on the regulatory failures that led to
the costly savings and loan bailout.
Deposits in savings institutions are, like pensions,
guaranteed by a federal insurance program. The savings
industry first sickened because changes in market
conditions made the traditional way savings and loans
operated unprofitable, but government delays and policy
missteps then made the situation much worse. In the end
taxpayers bailed out the industry - at a cost, according to
various estimates, of $150 billion to $200 billion.
Now experts say they see similar forces gathering in the
pension sector, with United Airlines perhaps the first to
go down the path. Operating in bankruptcy, United is
striving to attract the lenders and investors it needs to
survive. It said last month that it would no longer
contribute to its pension plans; United also seems intent
on shedding some or all of its $13 billion in pension
obligations as the only way to succeed in emerging from
bankruptcy proceedings.
If United manages to cut itself loose from the costly
burden of its pension plans, it might force others
determined to keep their costs similarly under control to
emulate its move. "Rivals may feel they are at a
competitive disadvantage and follow suit, raising the
specter of a domino effect in the industry," said Bradley
D. Belt, the executive director of the government's Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which insures pensions. If
every airline with a traditional pension plan were
ultimately to default, the government would be on the hook
for an estimated $31 billion. Its insurance coverage is
limited, so some employees would have their benefits
reduced.
"The pension insurance program is there to protect workers'
benefits," said Mr. Belt, who took over the agency in
April. "It shouldn't be used as a piggy bank to help
companies restructure."
Already, some airline employees are taking steps to protect
themselves against future pension losses.
Each month, for example, about 30 pilots normally retire
from Delta Air Lines. But in June, almost 300 did.
Andrew Dean, one of the new retirees, said he and his
colleagues watched in dismay as the financial debacle
unfolded at United. He said that he and many of his fellow
pilots decided they had better grab their pensions right
away - while the money was still there.
"These are very scary times right now for someone in my
position," said Mr. Dean, who at 58 walked away from his
job just as he was reaching the peak earning period of his
career. His pension was also reduced because he retired
early.
But his decision now looks prescient. On Friday, Delta
asked its pilots for a 35 percent pay cut and proposed a
smaller pension plan.
Foremost on the minds of the departing pilots, Mr. Dean
said, were arcane pension rules that can offer advantages
to workers who quit before a pension plan fails. At Delta,
for example, as long as the pension plan stays afloat,
pilots are allowed to take half of their benefit in a
single check when they retire. But if the plan fails, the
pilots lose their chance to take a big payout.
"What I've managed to do is secure half of my retirement,"
Mr. Dean said. He may still lose the rest if the government
takes over the program and limits future payouts. "I really
lose sleep over that," he said.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is already hobbled
by debt, having picked up the pieces of more than 3,200
failed pension plans in its 30-year life. The scale of the
failures has risen sharply in the last three years, but the
agency has few tools at its disposal to prevent the
situation from becoming worse.
Now it faces a possible $5 billion default by United -
which would be a record - and the possibility of more big
airline defaults after that.
"The agency can't take a lot of $5 billion hits, multiple
times per year, year after year, and survive," said Steven
A. Kandarian, the pension agency's immediate past director.
"Eventually, you'll run out of money."
It is impossible to predict the exact size of any pension
bailout, although economic projections by the agency
suggest that in the worst case, a bailout within the next
decade involving failures beyond the airlines could cost
taxpayers up to $110 billion.
But because pension obligations, unlike bank deposits, do
not have to be paid off all at once, it is difficult to
raise alarms about the threat.
"The real blowup doesn't happen right away; it happens over
time," Mr. Kandarian said. "You've got to address it now,
but it doesn't look like a crisis now. The crisis is always
over the next hill."
The risk is that the longer the problems are avoided, the
worse they can get.
"With the S.&L.'s, what was a relatively small problem in
the early 1980's became over a $100 billion problem in the
late 1980's," said Mr. Kandarian, who fears the same thing
will happen to the pension system.
United, the nation's second-largest carrier behind
American, is one of the worst off of the airlines. The
entire industry has been coping with high fuel prices and
flagging demand, particularly since the 9/11 terrorist
attacks.
But United and the other five remaining major carriers that
grew up in a world of regulated routes and ticket prices -
American, Continental, Delta, Northwest and US Airways -
face even more fundamental problems. In recent years, all
of them have struggled to compete with the new, low-cost
carriers like Southwest, JetBlue and AirTran that have much
lower overhead.
United has been operating in bankruptcy proceedings since
December 2002. Already, it has negotiated significant
concessions from its workers, suppliers, landlords and
others. United says it is still analyzing what to do with
its pension plans.
In June, the Air Transportation Stabilization Board turned
down United's request for federal loan guarantees, saying
it believed the airline could get financing without
government help. So far, United has not been able to. Until
it does, it cannot emerge from bankruptcy proceedings.
It is an open secret that prospective financiers are turned
off by the roughly $13 billion of pension debt United is
carrying on its books - the one big block of debt that the
airline has left untouched so far. That figure is the
value, in today's dollars, of the pensions that United's
pilots, flight attendants and other workers and retirees
have earned. Once a pension has been earned, it cannot
legally be taken away.
By law, this debt to the work force is to be secured by the
money United sets aside in its four big pension funds. But
as things have turned out, United had only about $7 billion
in the pension funds as of last December.
The remaining $6 billion is unsecured debt. Pension law and
bankruptcy law differ on the implications of this: pension
law says the $13 billion owed to the workers cannot be
taken away, while bankruptcy law says the workers are
unsecured creditors with respect to the $6 billion
shortfall. And unsecured creditors usually lose in a
bankruptcy case.
If, in the coming months, United persuades its bankruptcy
judge that it cannot survive without canceling its pension
debts, then the airline will be allowed to unload some or
all of its $13 billion obligation, helping it line up the
financing it needs to emerge from bankruptcy proceedings.
The pension debt, and the $7 billion United has already set
aside in pension assets, will go to the federal pension
agency, which will pay the airline's retirees their
benefits, but only up to certain limits.
Hard as that would be on the employees of United, it is
also an alarming prospect to the employees of the other
major carriers.
"Things start to set a precedent," Mr. Dean, the retired
Delta pilot, said. "If a bankruptcy court allows a company
to terminate its pensions, then that becomes a very
tempting business tool."
That is what happened in the steel industry. LTV Steel's
pension fund fell to the government in March 2002, and its
unencumbered assets - steel mills, coke and lime plants,
railroads and other properties - were snapped up at once.
That put pressure on other tottering steel companies to
shed their pension plans as well.
Seven more failing steel plans went to the government
before the year was out, including the current
record-holder among pension defaults, the Bethlehem Steel
plan, which cost the pension agency $3.9 billion to take
over.
It wasn't supposed to be this way. In 1974, Congress
responded to an ugly string of pension failures in the auto
industry by passing landmark legislation. From then on, any
company that promised pensions to its workers would be
required to set aside enough money to pay them. Rules were
written to determine how much money was enough. To weave
the retirement safety net even more tightly, Congress also
created the pension insurance program.
Those protections were hailed as "the greatest development
in the life of the American worker since Social Security"
by Senator Jacob K. Javits, the New York Republican who
died in 1986.
Bailout Feared if Airlines Shed Their Pensions
August 1, 2004
By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH
In an echo of the savings and loan industry collapse of the
1980's, the federal agency that insures company pensions is
facing a possible cascade of bankruptcies and pension
defaults in the airline industry that some experts fear
could lead to another multibillion-dollar taxpayer bailout.
"The similarities are incredible," said George J. Benston,
a finance professor at Emory University in Atlanta who has
written extensively on the regulatory failures that led to
the costly savings and loan bailout.
Deposits in savings institutions are, like pensions,
guaranteed by a federal insurance program. The savings
industry first sickened because changes in market
conditions made the traditional way savings and loans
operated unprofitable, but government delays and policy
missteps then made the situation much worse. In the end
taxpayers bailed out the industry - at a cost, according to
various estimates, of $150 billion to $200 billion.
Now experts say they see similar forces gathering in the
pension sector, with United Airlines perhaps the first to
go down the path. Operating in bankruptcy, United is
striving to attract the lenders and investors it needs to
survive. It said last month that it would no longer
contribute to its pension plans; United also seems intent
on shedding some or all of its $13 billion in pension
obligations as the only way to succeed in emerging from
bankruptcy proceedings.
If United manages to cut itself loose from the costly
burden of its pension plans, it might force others
determined to keep their costs similarly under control to
emulate its move. "Rivals may feel they are at a
competitive disadvantage and follow suit, raising the
specter of a domino effect in the industry," said Bradley
D. Belt, the executive director of the government's Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which insures pensions. If
every airline with a traditional pension plan were
ultimately to default, the government would be on the hook
for an estimated $31 billion. Its insurance coverage is
limited, so some employees would have their benefits
reduced.
"The pension insurance program is there to protect workers'
benefits," said Mr. Belt, who took over the agency in
April. "It shouldn't be used as a piggy bank to help
companies restructure."
Already, some airline employees are taking steps to protect
themselves against future pension losses.
Each month, for example, about 30 pilots normally retire
from Delta Air Lines. But in June, almost 300 did.
Andrew Dean, one of the new retirees, said he and his
colleagues watched in dismay as the financial debacle
unfolded at United. He said that he and many of his fellow
pilots decided they had better grab their pensions right
away - while the money was still there.
"These are very scary times right now for someone in my
position," said Mr. Dean, who at 58 walked away from his
job just as he was reaching the peak earning period of his
career. His pension was also reduced because he retired
early.
But his decision now looks prescient. On Friday, Delta
asked its pilots for a 35 percent pay cut and proposed a
smaller pension plan.
Foremost on the minds of the departing pilots, Mr. Dean
said, were arcane pension rules that can offer advantages
to workers who quit before a pension plan fails. At Delta,
for example, as long as the pension plan stays afloat,
pilots are allowed to take half of their benefit in a
single check when they retire. But if the plan fails, the
pilots lose their chance to take a big payout.
"What I've managed to do is secure half of my retirement,"
Mr. Dean said. He may still lose the rest if the government
takes over the program and limits future payouts. "I really
lose sleep over that," he said.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is already hobbled
by debt, having picked up the pieces of more than 3,200
failed pension plans in its 30-year life. The scale of the
failures has risen sharply in the last three years, but the
agency has few tools at its disposal to prevent the
situation from becoming worse.
Now it faces a possible $5 billion default by United -
which would be a record - and the possibility of more big
airline defaults after that.
"The agency can't take a lot of $5 billion hits, multiple
times per year, year after year, and survive," said Steven
A. Kandarian, the pension agency's immediate past director.
"Eventually, you'll run out of money."
It is impossible to predict the exact size of any pension
bailout, although economic projections by the agency
suggest that in the worst case, a bailout within the next
decade involving failures beyond the airlines could cost
taxpayers up to $110 billion.
But because pension obligations, unlike bank deposits, do
not have to be paid off all at once, it is difficult to
raise alarms about the threat.
"The real blowup doesn't happen right away; it happens over
time," Mr. Kandarian said. "You've got to address it now,
but it doesn't look like a crisis now. The crisis is always
over the next hill."
The risk is that the longer the problems are avoided, the
worse they can get.
"With the S.&L.'s, what was a relatively small problem in
the early 1980's became over a $100 billion problem in the
late 1980's," said Mr. Kandarian, who fears the same thing
will happen to the pension system.
United, the nation's second-largest carrier behind
American, is one of the worst off of the airlines. The
entire industry has been coping with high fuel prices and
flagging demand, particularly since the 9/11 terrorist
attacks.
But United and the other five remaining major carriers that
grew up in a world of regulated routes and ticket prices -
American, Continental, Delta, Northwest and US Airways -
face even more fundamental problems. In recent years, all
of them have struggled to compete with the new, low-cost
carriers like Southwest, JetBlue and AirTran that have much
lower overhead.
United has been operating in bankruptcy proceedings since
December 2002. Already, it has negotiated significant
concessions from its workers, suppliers, landlords and
others. United says it is still analyzing what to do with
its pension plans.
In June, the Air Transportation Stabilization Board turned
down United's request for federal loan guarantees, saying
it believed the airline could get financing without
government help. So far, United has not been able to. Until
it does, it cannot emerge from bankruptcy proceedings.
It is an open secret that prospective financiers are turned
off by the roughly $13 billion of pension debt United is
carrying on its books - the one big block of debt that the
airline has left untouched so far. That figure is the
value, in today's dollars, of the pensions that United's
pilots, flight attendants and other workers and retirees
have earned. Once a pension has been earned, it cannot
legally be taken away.
By law, this debt to the work force is to be secured by the
money United sets aside in its four big pension funds. But
as things have turned out, United had only about $7 billion
in the pension funds as of last December.
The remaining $6 billion is unsecured debt. Pension law and
bankruptcy law differ on the implications of this: pension
law says the $13 billion owed to the workers cannot be
taken away, while bankruptcy law says the workers are
unsecured creditors with respect to the $6 billion
shortfall. And unsecured creditors usually lose in a
bankruptcy case.
If, in the coming months, United persuades its bankruptcy
judge that it cannot survive without canceling its pension
debts, then the airline will be allowed to unload some or
all of its $13 billion obligation, helping it line up the
financing it needs to emerge from bankruptcy proceedings.
The pension debt, and the $7 billion United has already set
aside in pension assets, will go to the federal pension
agency, which will pay the airline's retirees their
benefits, but only up to certain limits.
Hard as that would be on the employees of United, it is
also an alarming prospect to the employees of the other
major carriers.
"Things start to set a precedent," Mr. Dean, the retired
Delta pilot, said. "If a bankruptcy court allows a company
to terminate its pensions, then that becomes a very
tempting business tool."
That is what happened in the steel industry. LTV Steel's
pension fund fell to the government in March 2002, and its
unencumbered assets - steel mills, coke and lime plants,
railroads and other properties - were snapped up at once.
That put pressure on other tottering steel companies to
shed their pension plans as well.
Seven more failing steel plans went to the government
before the year was out, including the current
record-holder among pension defaults, the Bethlehem Steel
plan, which cost the pension agency $3.9 billion to take
over.
It wasn't supposed to be this way. In 1974, Congress
responded to an ugly string of pension failures in the auto
industry by passing landmark legislation. From then on, any
company that promised pensions to its workers would be
required to set aside enough money to pay them. Rules were
written to determine how much money was enough. To weave
the retirement safety net even more tightly, Congress also
created the pension insurance program.
Those protections were hailed as "the greatest development
in the life of the American worker since Social Security"
by Senator Jacob K. Javits, the New York Republican who
died in 1986.
jarhead
master of my domain
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2002
- Posts
- 1,162
part 2 of 2
But for many workers, those protections no longer look so
secure.
"You see that the whole thing could really be a house of
cards that could come crashing down," Mr. Dean said.
United's pension plan developed its multibillion-dollar
shortfall, in part, because pension law allows companies to
fund their plans with the assets that any prudent investor
would select. Over time, that has meant a shift away from
the very conservative bonds that companies used to secure
pensions before the 1974 law, in favor of more aggressive
investments.
Stocks have become the investment of choice, but today many
pension funds seek to bolster their returns even more by
adding relatively small amounts of hedge funds, junk bonds
and other risky assets. This investment approach can
produce attractive returns over time, but can be very
volatile and much more dangerous if companies are forced to
pay off some of their pension obligations in a down market.
As the pension system has weakened, some specialists have
called for measures that would discourage the riskiest
investments. As director of the pension agency, Mr.
Kandarian proposed charging higher insurance premiums to
companies that invested their pension funds in riskier
assets, particularly companies that were in bad shape
themselves. No one paid attention.
"I was naive," Mr. Kandarian said.
Along with Mr.
Kandarian, current officials at the pension agency and at
the Treasury Department have also been calling for a
tightening of the rules requiring pensions to set aside
enough money to meet their obligations. In April, Congress
loosened the rules instead. The biggest flexibility was
given to the most troubled industries, making their pension
funds look healthier.
"Doctoring the numbers is all they're doing, and they're
especially doing it for steel and airlines," Mr. Benston
said. "Shades of the savings and loan crisis. Same darn
thing."
But for many workers, those protections no longer look so
secure.
"You see that the whole thing could really be a house of
cards that could come crashing down," Mr. Dean said.
United's pension plan developed its multibillion-dollar
shortfall, in part, because pension law allows companies to
fund their plans with the assets that any prudent investor
would select. Over time, that has meant a shift away from
the very conservative bonds that companies used to secure
pensions before the 1974 law, in favor of more aggressive
investments.
Stocks have become the investment of choice, but today many
pension funds seek to bolster their returns even more by
adding relatively small amounts of hedge funds, junk bonds
and other risky assets. This investment approach can
produce attractive returns over time, but can be very
volatile and much more dangerous if companies are forced to
pay off some of their pension obligations in a down market.
As the pension system has weakened, some specialists have
called for measures that would discourage the riskiest
investments. As director of the pension agency, Mr.
Kandarian proposed charging higher insurance premiums to
companies that invested their pension funds in riskier
assets, particularly companies that were in bad shape
themselves. No one paid attention.
"I was naive," Mr. Kandarian said.
Along with Mr.
Kandarian, current officials at the pension agency and at
the Treasury Department have also been calling for a
tightening of the rules requiring pensions to set aside
enough money to meet their obligations. In April, Congress
loosened the rules instead. The biggest flexibility was
given to the most troubled industries, making their pension
funds look healthier.
"Doctoring the numbers is all they're doing, and they're
especially doing it for steel and airlines," Mr. Benston
said. "Shades of the savings and loan crisis. Same darn
thing."
Palerider957
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2003
- Posts
- 975
Golfcart Man
New member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2004
- Posts
- 4
Perspective
Before working for Delta, I was at ASA for 6 years. During the last contract negotiations, especially during the Olympics in ATL, there was a strong opinion that ASA should, as you stated, "shut this place down." The feeling was that Mother Delta would never let that happen.
Well, the COMAIR strike and the presence of other connection carriers in your own hubs, lay that theory to rest.
Having been on both sides I can say that at the regional level there is a tendancy to feel that you are bigger than you really are. For example, today, Delta mainline will fly 253K pax. Our International will fly 33K pax. ASA will fly 29K pax with far more flights than our International fleet will.
So, ~~~^~~~, I bring this up just to try and offer a little perspective for you. Becareful when you toot your own horn...it isn't that large.
Also, I agree with you that you should not suffer a pay cut during this whole process. In fact, I hope you get a pay raise. Why? Cause our wages are coming down, and as yours come up, the efficiency gap will narrow. Maybe to the point that having ASA and your RJs no longer become economically justifiable. Remember Air Tran and Air Wisconson?
I have been reading posts on these boards for a while, but I have to respond to this one.~~~^~~~ said:General ( and subordinate officers ) :
The other "stakeholders" who are in section 6 negotiations will not agree to a pay cut to offset above market wages at mainline. Why should we?
We at ASA are unique in this situation, as the lowest paid pilots working for Delta, to find other work which pays more than our current earnings. To sum it up, we have little, to nothing, to lose if Delta disappears.
That might bear keeping in mind as our "self help" date approaches.
The Delta MEC feels that they can unilaterally negotiate other employees contracts!?! I can see why you believe that since your MEC has made an absolute shambles of section 1, everywhere. However, making demands on our pay is a more clear cut violation of ALPA's duty.
You know my vote already.... One more attack from my own union and this place needs to be ( legally ) shut down. Ironically, I don't mind helping out Delta, but ALPA's policy of allowing mainline to control regional pilot contracts makes this Little Bighorn in my view. The indians are getting tired of being pushed around..... ( maybe you can give us a Casino to run in the Atlanta Airport)
~~~^~~~
Before working for Delta, I was at ASA for 6 years. During the last contract negotiations, especially during the Olympics in ATL, there was a strong opinion that ASA should, as you stated, "shut this place down." The feeling was that Mother Delta would never let that happen.
Well, the COMAIR strike and the presence of other connection carriers in your own hubs, lay that theory to rest.
Having been on both sides I can say that at the regional level there is a tendancy to feel that you are bigger than you really are. For example, today, Delta mainline will fly 253K pax. Our International will fly 33K pax. ASA will fly 29K pax with far more flights than our International fleet will.
So, ~~~^~~~, I bring this up just to try and offer a little perspective for you. Becareful when you toot your own horn...it isn't that large.
Also, I agree with you that you should not suffer a pay cut during this whole process. In fact, I hope you get a pay raise. Why? Cause our wages are coming down, and as yours come up, the efficiency gap will narrow. Maybe to the point that having ASA and your RJs no longer become economically justifiable. Remember Air Tran and Air Wisconson?
Ganja60Heavy
what we talking about?
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2004
- Posts
- 302
Non-starter
I hear there will be NO DEAL unless other groups accept cuts, too.
One sticking point is that Comair and ASA pilots need to give their fair share.
If ANY CMR/ASA guys under 10 years seniority are NOT on foodstamps, there will be no deal.
I heard a Delta captain mumble something about ramen noodles when he saw an ASA F/O purchase a piece of Popeye's chicken....for CA$H.....apparently a luxury item.
I hear there will be NO DEAL unless other groups accept cuts, too.
One sticking point is that Comair and ASA pilots need to give their fair share.
If ANY CMR/ASA guys under 10 years seniority are NOT on foodstamps, there will be no deal.
I heard a Delta captain mumble something about ramen noodles when he saw an ASA F/O purchase a piece of Popeye's chicken....for CA$H.....apparently a luxury item.
MetroSheriff
Hittin' the road...
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 854
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
