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 TA as per Council 20 Chair Tom Tucker

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

Flybywire44

Flies With The Hat On
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Posts
991
Interesting words from DALPA Council 20 Chairman:


*********************
To: Council 20 Pilots

From: Council 20 Chairman

Subject: Frequently Asked Questions

In the last few weeks, I have been repeatedly asked questions concerning the tentative agreement (TA). Here are the most common questions, a question of my own, my responses, and my comments.

Q. When did Richard Anderson propose the expedited negotiations?

A. The MEC met for a special MEC meeting in January in Washington D.C. The guest speaker was Linda Puchala, Chairman National Mediation Board. Mr. Anderson has a standing invitation to speak to the Delta MEC. He occasionally attends a quarterly MEC meeting, but not special MEC meetings. Mr. Anderson requested to speak to the MEC at this MEC special meeting. He brought Ed Bastian and Mike Campbell with him to the meeting. The MEC was well aware that the leadership of Delta Air Lines does not take a day off of work to speak to the MEC without delivering a message. Mr. Anderson explained in very general terms his wish to park 50-seat aircraft, increase 76-seat aircraft, and buy additional narrow body aircraft.

Q. Who was at the table negotiating for the Company?

A. Among others there were: Captain Steve Dickson, Executive Vice President Mike Campbell, and Brendan Brannon-Labor Relations.

Q. Is it true that the MEC was not informed of the TA pay rates until after the Negotiating Committee had agreed to the TA? If this is true, when did the Negotiating Committee agree to the TA and when was the MEC presented the pay rates?

A. Yes, we were not informed of the TA pay rates before the MEC meeting. The Negotiating Committee agreed to the TA on Monday, May 7, 2012. The MEC was travelling to the MEC meeting that day. The MEC was informed of the TA pay rates on Tuesday, May 8, 2012 at the MEC meeting. I (we) had not been provided any information on the Company’s pay rate opener or where negotiations stood on pay rates except for an informational conference call, held the weekend (3 days) prior to the MEC meeting. The conference call concerned converting profit sharing to pay rates. I assumed the Negotiating Committee was having difficulty reaching the level of pay that was directed by the MEC. I commented at that time that I would have to wait to see the overall pay before I could provide an opinion. Informational conference calls cannot provide direction to the MEC Officers or the Negotiating Committee.

Q. On the FAQ section of the MEC website it is stated that “this TA is not a ‘zero cost’ TA. For the pilot group the end-run pay increases alone are valued at over $400M/year (each one percent increase in compensation equates to about $20M)”. You had a different opinion. Please explain.

A. The $400m cost is the net additional pay to the pilot group in 2015. We will receive additional pay in the form of hourly compensation in this TA, but at the expense of work rules and productivity enhancements. The $400m cost to the company does not include the savings from work rule changes. As an example, you go into a Chevrolet dealer to buy a new $40,000 Tahoe. If you have $3,000 of GM credit card points and $4,000 of dealer incentives then the “net cost” to you is $33,000. The same holds true for the Company; the net cost of this TA for total pilot compensation is far less than the $400m stated for 2015. As I previously stated, “This is a reduction in work rules for pay; pure and simple.” If our only concern is pay rates, then we can continue to surrender additional work rules for pay in future contracts. It is your choice.
As for the net cost to the Company for a new pilot contract, which in my opinion is offset by the savings of parking 50-seat regional jets, Delta Executive Vice President Mike Campbell stated, “The fleet changes provided by this agreement, coupled with the productivity and profit sharing changes, cover the investments in our employees.” I happen to agree with Mr. Campbell’s perspective on the cost to the company for pilot payroll.

Q. I read that the TA reduces the number of 76-seat aircraft?

A. Delta currently has 153 76-seat aircraft. The company can currently increase that number of 76-seat aircraft to 255 by adding 44 mainline aircraft. For each mainline aircraft above 767, the company can add 3 76-seat aircraft. The total number of 70 and 76-seat aircraft cannot be greater than 255. Thus, the Company would have to park most 70-seat aircraft to add more 76-seat aircraft; for the most part, they cannot just add six seats. The TA allows the company to increase the 76-seat aircraft to 223 from a current total of 153 planes and keep the 102 70-seat aircraft. Though the current contract allows the Company to have 255 76-seat aircraft, they would be required to add more mainline aircraft and convert or park 70-seat aircraft for this to occur. In order to convert / transition all 102 70-seat aircraft to 76-seat aircraft, the mainline would have to grow to 801 aircraft. This is an unlikely event, especially since, according to a recent Negotiators’ Notepad, in the case with “no TA” and a very optimistic, best-case scenario 6% annual capacity growth, the projected mainline fleet would only grow to 781, which would only allow 42 additional 76-seat aircraft. So yes, relative to the current PWA the TA is a reduction in potential 76-seat aircraft, but in practicality the TA will increase the number of large RJ (70 and 76 seat) aircraft flown for Delta Air Lines.

Q. What is this value you believe we did not receive in the TA?

A. As I mentioned in my earlier Chairman’s letter, this TA allows Delta to remove 50-seat aircraft from service at a faster rate than they could under the current PWA. This is a significant savings for Delta through increased revenue and efficiencies with the 76-seat aircraft vice the smaller 50-seat aircraft. There is even greater savings in removing older 50-seat aircraft from the fleet before major and extremely expensive engine overhauls are required. We were presented projections on these savings. I contend that a percentage of these one-time costs should be considered and amortized over a period of time as a credit to Delta pilots. Even if a small percentage of these savings were categorized as a “credit” to pilots in this TA, the result could be a significant addition to the proposed pay raises for Delta pilots. This credit could be paid in a one-time expense as cash or stock or over the life of this agreement. Though the maintenance costs are “one-time savings” there will also be a continuous and ongoing financial benefit to Delta Air Lines from the upgauging of the DCI fleet that only the TA would allow. That benefit of these scope changes to the Company will remain well past the amendable date of this contract.

Without this TA, Delta will not be able to retire the 50-seat aircraft at the desired rate. The Company will not be able to even begin to increase the number of 76-seat aircraft without first increasing the mainline fleet by over forty aircraft. Delta pilots did not receive consideration, “credit”, nor compensation for agreeing to this significant change in scope. The question about the negotiating credit was asked of the MEC Leadership and Negotiators at least twice during the MEC direction and deliberation phases. The savings to the Company is substantial. Based upon the known net pilot cost of the TA and the savings from these scope and fleet changes, I suspect that these savings are the ones noted in Mike Campbell’s statement, “The fleet changes provided by this agreement, coupled with the productivity and profit sharing changes, cover the investments in our employees.”

To put it another way, the scope changes included in this TA began as a “supposal” presented by Richard Anderson. First, these scope changes allow for a marked increase in 76-seat aircraft that is practically impossible under our current PWA. Second, this allows for the reduction of the number of 50-seat aircraft, setting a limit on the total number of RJ aircraft, and reducing the total number of RJ seats. . Even if you trade the first items for the second, there is still the “substantial” one time cost savings the company will receive that is not possible without pilot approval of this TA. I contend that not receiving compensation/finder’s fee/commission/bonus for this significant change in scope is passing on an opportunity. Both former NWA and DAL pilots received stock during the merger as an incentive to approve the JCBA and unlock value to the company. I believe the same model is appropriate during these negotiations. The pay rate increases in the TA can be broken down as: a small actual increase in pay, trade of profit sharing for guaranteed pay, work rules for pay, and small cost of living increases. Even Richard Anderson has commented publicly about his concern for inflationary increases in the near future. Will a 3% raise cover inflation?
 
Last edited:
*****

we have already witnessed one delta dci carrier enter bankruptcy protection. Flying 50-seat aircraft is not profitable. With the approval of this ta, unprofitable 50-seat aircraft will be reduced from 343 to approximately 125 aircraft. 70-seat aircraft will remain the same at 102 aircraft. 76-seat aircraft will increase from 153 to 223 aircraft. this ta has the possibility to make dci carriers profitable.
q. What leverage did alpa have in these negotiations and has this leverage expired?

A. I have written to you numerous times that richard anderson’s deals are multi-faceted.
· to park the majority of the 50-seat aircraft, the company must replace the lift either with 76-seat aircraft, small narrow body mainline aircraft, or both.
· captain dickson has stated that the company will not acquire the b-717 aircraft unless the ta is approved. captain curt kruse, retired and former nwa mec vice chairman and council 54 chairman, as well as several others had a standing rule for negotiations-“never trade contractual improvements or negotiate for aircraft. The company will buy the aircraft if they need them.” without the allowance for more total large rjs, the company will still either need to acquire some number of mainline aircraft (as they reduce the 50 seat capacity where they are able) or retire older aircraft more slowly as the 737-900s arrive. To park the remaining 50-seat aircraft, which are under a capacity purchase agreements with dci carriers, the company proposes replacing 76-seat aircraft for 50-seat aircraft.
· the company must alter the current pwa to increase 76-aircraft.
· the company must cancel leases on 50-seat aircraft.
· the company must purchase 76-seat aircraft.
· the 50-seat aircraft were purchased/leased from bombardier.
· the 76-seat aircraft are currently proposed to be purchased/leased from bombardier.
· the crj-900 (76-aircraft) production line is ending. as of march 12, 2012 there are only eleven unfilled orders for crj-900 aircraft. When the production line will close has not been confirmed, whether it would be a “soft” or a “hard” close is also unknown, but the timeline could be short. This information on the crj production line is now in the public domain. Either delta air lines signs a deal soon to return 50-seat aircraft to the manufacture and orders 76-seat aircraft or they may not be able to order crj-900 aircraft. Ordering three bombardier 76-seat aircraft at a time in the future when delta mainline fleet is above 767 aircraft is not an option. Ordering emb-175 aircraft does not allow delta to return the remaining 50-seat aircraft to bombardier and these aircraft cannot be flown at delta without additional scope changes. this was leverage during negotiations and it is still available today.

q. to be forthright, i made up the following question:
do you have any concerns with the following statement in captain o’malley’s chairman’s letter of june 15, 2012, “i unequivocally support this agreement, and i encourage you to vote in favor when you cast your vote”?


a. yes. i saw a preview of this letter a few hours before publication. I immediately wrote captain o’malley and captain hazzard, communications chairman, and commented “did you mean to say “the mec supports this ta”? ”you speak for the mec and do not have a personal opinion while speaking as the mec chairman”.

This issue gets to the heart of the cultural difference between the way that the pre-merger mecs and pilot groups did business, the intent of the alpa constitution and by laws and the current dalpa mec practices. Section 3.e.1.b of the delta mec policy manual states the following in regards to the duties of the mec chairman, “be the official spokesman for the policies of the mec”. On the other hand, the delta mec policy manual does not prohibit the mec chairman from expressing his own opinion via his alpa position.

are the duties of your lec and mec officers to “represent your interests” or to “lead” you? i contend it is the former. If change is to occur, the impetus must originate at the membership level.

q. i understand you have concerns with the “process” in the negotiations. Please explain.

a. My primary concern with the process did not occur until the negotiating committee approved the ta. the direction of the mec in regards to pay was very specific and the ta does not fulfill that direction. If the negotiating committee was not able to reach the minimum value specified by the mec, i believe they should have followed the past practice of the combined delta mec and reported back to the mec for additional direction. this is not just my concern; i believe it is shared by other members of the mec and not limited to just those representatives who eventually voted “no”. A process failure of this magnitude should also be of great concern to the pilot group as well since it makes it very difficult to trust the way decisions of this degree are reached. The mec will review the process and take actions it may deem appropriate beginning at the august mec meeting.

One of my “other” lec peers recently noted in their council publication, “representatives were always able to call the negotiators or call for a special mec meeting if they felt uncomfortable with the process or wanted to give more concrete direction or redirection. None of the elected representatives ever called for such a meeting to clarify our position or redirect our negotiators.” as previously discussed above, the concern over process did not occur until the final day of negotiations and the mec did not know of it until after the fact. Second, calling for a special meeting requires 1/3 of the voting members of the mec to agree that one is needed, the date / time, and the agenda. Thus, seven votes are required. Obtaining seven votes for such an action on the current mec is difficult. Following the merger, the former council 44 chairman committed to the mec that “if you have a concern, then it is my concern too” referring to his promise that he would support a call for an mec special meeting. That view is no longer shared around the table.

In regards to the special mec meeting issue, i was concerned with the initial response of the mec following the supposal (rj scope changes and expedited negotiations) from richard anderson. I sent the following to captain o’malley and the mec. As special mec meetings are costly, i proposed a mec conference call to discuss how the delta mec should respond to mr. Anderson’s supposal.

“tim,
on your aspen to the mec, dated february 3rd, you stated under item two:

[redacted for confidentiality]

members of the mec are requesting that you engage with the entire mec via conference call to clarify this statement, and to do so prior to your meeting with the delta senior executives. The mec did not provide direction for you or any other members of the administration to engage senior management on any [redacted]. We are asking for a clarification of your commitment as few, if any, of the members of the mec recall this commitment. The mec is also requesting what specific items of [redacted] you plan to discuss.
___________________________________________________________________________
members of the mec,

by now i have spoken with many of you, you have spoken within your councils, and tim was planning to call all the lec chairman in regards to his aspen. I request your support for a conference call where all mec members are informed of the purpose of this meeting, topics to be discussed, and you can express your concerns with this action. Though this is short notice, i would hope that at least one member of each lec would be available to participate on the conference call before a meeting with delta management, which is tentatively scheduled to be held before the mec special meeting.”

the conference call did not occur. Instead, captain o’malley called most of the members of the mec and had a private discussion with each representative. Thus, the mec members did not hear each other’s views on the issue nor did they reach a consensus on how to proceed. The precursor of expedited negotiations began without the specific direction of the mec.

Q. Why were you not at the dtw road show?

A. As we wrote you earlier, “the short notice of the road shows combined with pre-existing family and flying commitments will not allow your council 20 representatives to be at the road show.” i had committed to care for my elderly, ailing father-in-law for a very specific period; i could not cancel this commitment. Your lec representatives had previously debated our concerns with the ta at the mec meeting. The road shows are for the mec to explain the ta to the membership, not for the elected representatives to debate with the mec chairman, negotiating committee, or “expanded team” attending the road shows.
 
Last edited:
*****

q. What about the recent forum comments concerning that you are collecting fpl and not working for alpa?

A. The forum is an interesting entity. Few pilots participate in the discussions on the forum. An additional relatively small percentage of dal pilots “lurk” on the forum to view the discussions. Most pilots rarely visit the forum or consider it as a credible source of information. As one recent poster wrote, “this is the forum. Facts have no basis here”.
I understand the political nature of the forum and the political realities of my position as your representative. I have always supported your landrum-griffin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/labor_management_reporting_and_disclosure_act) right to free speech, but these rights do not allow you to yell fire in a crowded theatre or state an opinion without factual support. When forum posters cross the line of impugning the integrity of this council i am obliged to respond. I find two recent posts offensive and incongruent with the historical conduct of council 20 representatives:

· “the leaks (pay rates) came from the no voters, not the yes voters. Get real. They were looking for political cover.”
the author, not a dtw pilot, of this post was contacted by his lec representative and informed that the no voters had been queried and did not release the pay rate information. Members of the mec had emails confirming at least one source of the leaked pay rate information (not an alpa entity) and that i requested the poster remove his comments. He “respectfully declined”. From a purely political view point, voting no on the ta probably ended any opportunity for a “no voter” to hold an mec officer or alpa international position. To be clear, i have no interest in either position, but even if i had it would not have changed my opinion or action.

· from a non council 20 poster “these guys were not there, if they were my reps i would have been disappointed and confronted them, if they provided satisfactory reasons i would let it go. If not...not so much. I also would expect them to be in the lounge (after all they are on full fpl) for maximum access over the next several weeks.” the poster later noted that my “feathers were ruffled” when the only false statement he made was questioning our integrity by collecting fpl while not performing alpa duties. If he had taken the time to check our schedules, the council 20 representatives were not on alpa fpl during the dtw road show; one of us was flying and the other two were on days off.
While attending the frozen four finals in 1969, university of denver (du) versus cornell, i sat with my father who taught at du and chancellor alter (http://blogs.du.edu/today/magazine/a-life-well-lived). The chancellor was bigger than life; a harvard educated chemist, a member of the manhattan project, and a true gentleman. Between periods, a graduate assistant appeared and began yelling at the chancellor. The graduate assistant was way off base, emotional, rude, and yelling at the man who determined the future of his graduate studies. The chancellor listened and recommended that the graduate assistant call his office for an appointment and that he would be happy to meet with him. The berating continued and my father, who has little patience, escorted the graduate assistant away. I asked the chancellor why he put up with this behavior and he responded, “sometimes you just have to consider the source”. A long story to get a point, how much credence do we give to forum posters by responding to their baseless assertions. The mec web boards are a privilege and not a right. Collecting fpl and not performing alpa duties is not a small issue. It is stealing from the pilots who pay dues, it is an article viii offense, and demonstrates a total lack of integrity. Your council 20 representatives were not on full time flight pay loss during the dtw road show and we will only be dropping rotations as necessary to allow us to be in the crew lounge to respond to your questions on the ta. You can always view our schedules in icrew.

Q. There have been many dpn (delta pilot network) volunteers and council 20 representatives in the crew lounge. Are my dues paying for this?

A. The dpn volunteers and drew are paid out of pilot dues. Alpa reimburses the company the value of the dropped rotation for these volunteers plus a 35.75% override for benefits. As voting representatives, tom and scott are paid under 24.j of the pwa. Alpa does not have to reimburse the company for our dropped rotations.

comments
the proposed pay rates do exceed the pay at ups and fedex in the 747/777 captain position in 2015, but both carriers will be in contract negotiations before our amendable date. The ta pay rates are lower than the other comparable aircraft and positions between delta and ups and fedex. How many pilots will ever reach the highest wide body captain position? The proposed pay rates are lower than the 2003 nwa pay rates. Statements that these pay rates are the highest ever achieved by former nwa pilot are false.

our peers at us airways and united have been unable to reach a ta with their respective companies. What was the difference in our negotiations? The difference is delta’s opportunity to rid the rj fleet of the majority of the 50-seat aircraft through a change to section i of the pwa. The mec failed to exercise the available leverage and realize the resulting benefits for delta pilots. We must not fail when the opportunity to increase the pay, working conditions, and benefits of delta pilots is presented.

richard anderson began early negotiations to reach a goal. That goal has a time line and there remains leverage available for delta pilots, in my opinion. the company placed senior management at the negotiating table with the authority to make decisions. This action resulted in expedited negotiations. The action of the negotiating committee to approve a ta that was incongruent with the direction of the mec, coupled with the very public announcement that a ta had been reached, and the leak of the pay rates made it difficult for the mec to quietly and privately return to the table or re-direct the negotiating committee.

you have been presented a ta which is far below your wishes according to the contract survey. you are faced with a choice of a bird in the hand, though a small one, in contrast to an unknown response from delta management if the ta is rejected. you do not know what is behind door number two. Pilots are risk averse and the resulting pay increases are tempting even though work rules were sacrificed in part to reach higher pay increases. certainly after a decade of pilot sacrifices, even marginal pay increases are appealing. This ta, if approved:

· will set the standard for our profession and delta pilots.
· will have rates of compensation that are likely not representative of the profitability of the company.
· will not sufficiently compensate our members for their contribution to the company’s bottom line.
· will demonstrate what the company “thinks we are worth” and will set a lower than necessary bar, both in pay and large rj scope for our peers.

more importantly, what are the company’s motivations? The company approached alpa with an opportunity in which we were able to segue into an early opener. It was their need per a business plans, not ours. While the 50-seat question was perhaps the initial catalyst, what is the end game? It is the opinion of some representatives that labor peace and fixed costs will enable delta to leap (further) ahead of the competition, placing us with better access to capital and placing delta in the “catbird seat” regarding future transactions. While there is not specific information available, it is well accepted that consolidation in this industry is not over. this is also a leverage factor in quickly getting back to the table should the ta fail. Would delta really walk away from those opportunities for the next three years because we rejected an agreement? at the very least, they will have to reengage us and reopen negotiations before the end of the year in order to implement new ftdt rules that are not currently allowed under our pwa. this process started with the company’s urgency. It did not need to become ours.

what is the path to a more successful outcome and what are the risks if this ta is not ratified? Very valid concerns and one no one can answer with certainty, including the pundits that claim it will end with the national mediation board (nmb) and three years of lost gains had the agreement been ratified. There is no question that ratifying the ta is the safe alternative. Perhaps a more pragmatic view is in assessing the provability of certain outcomes should this be voted down.

 
*****

While it is very unlikely we will have another deal in two weeks, it is also unlikely we will go three years and have a mediated result. It has been said that Delta has a plan B if the TA is voted down and it does not include ALPA. This is certainly what management would have us believe. Chances are there is a plan B, B.1, B.2, C, C.1 and so on that includes ALPA. While the current economic geopolitical landscape is a factor, this has always been the case.

The MEC Communications Committee never informed you that five of nineteen representatives voted no. They also did not inform you that the five no voting representatives serve approximately 4,000 of 10,500 Delta pilots. The representatives that voted no chose not to roll call the vote and chose only to have the vote recorded.

There is not one “right” answer and might does not make right in determining our future. There are many individual perspectives, wishes, and needs in play in determining your vote. Personal history and experience are often relevant and are a strong influence in a decision. You now know the leverage and information in which I will use to vote as a line pilot. This is a far different set of priorities than I used to vote as your representative. I respect your right to vote and the decision to vote for or against the TA is yours and yours alone. I only request your participation in the process.

Fraternally,

Tom Tucker
 
Very interesting. Now PCL and General- is he a troll as well?

This is what ive been trying to tell folks for a month now:

A. Delta currently has 153 76-seat aircraft. The company can currently increase that number of 76-seat aircraft to 255 by adding 44 mainline aircraft. For each mainline aircraft above 767, the company can add 3 76-seat aircraft. The total number of 70 and 76-seat aircraft cannot be greater than 255. Thus, the Company would have to park most 70-seat aircraft to add more 76-seat aircraft; for the most part, they cannot just add six seats. The TA allows the company to increase the 76-seat aircraft to 223 from a current total of 153 planes and keep the 102 70-seat aircraft. Though the current contract allows the Company to have 255 76-seat aircraft, they would be required to add more mainline aircraft and convert or park 70-seat aircraft for this to occur. In order to convert / transition all 102 70-seat aircraft to 76-seat aircraft, the mainline would have to grow to 801 aircraft. This is an unlikely event, especially since, according to a recent Negotiators’ Notepad, in the case with “no TA” and a very optimistic, best-case scenario 6% annual capacity growth, the projected mainline fleet would only grow to 781, which would only allow 42 additional 76-seat aircraft. So yes, relative to the current PWA the TA is a reduction in potential 76-seat aircraft, but in practicality the TA will increase the number of large RJ (70 and 76 seat) aircraft flown for Delta Air Lines.
 
Tom Tucker insinuates that DALPA's MEC does not support this TA. He further highlights that Delta Negotiators negotiated with Top Delta Management and did not meet directed MEC objectives. In fact, the DALPA negotiating committee ink'd the DAL TA without reporting their failure to the DALPA MEC.

In 2005 the CAL negotiating committee willfully ink'd a concessionary contract. Six months later many Negotiating Committee and MEC members at CAL were recalled only to take management positions at Continental. Ie. The 2005 head negotiator for CAL ALPA is now a UAL contract negotiator.

Buyer beware, DAL has left a lot of money and leverage on the table by giving up Scope. American and US Air consolidation will bring further profits to Delta not recognized in this TA.

With this TA regional business models will not return to profitability.
 
Last edited:
It's too late now. Voting is almost over. Word on the street is the "yea's" have it. Like the article said "pilots are risk averse". The fear of losing 20% over 3 years was too much to risk. At the end of the day, no one cares about the "industry", you care about your own personal welfare.
 
Tom Tucker? I thought he reported the new on the Family Guy.


Delta management must be laughing all the way to the bank. Talk about slipping one past the goalie. The pay for the payraises by decreasing the pilot profit sharing (huge gain for management) and getting to decrease the 50-seaters faster.. while plugging in a larger RJ (huge management gain because the 50s were going away anyway!).

The next contract they will say the 76 seaters aren't fuel effecient and will need to trade them for the larger models, and DALPA will take the small raise and sign off on the deal. Will they fund that payraise with decrease profit sharing too? Probably. Very sad.

I have to give it to Richie Anderson, he's a genious. He'll be taking your share of the profit sharing and depositing it in the executive bonus accounts.
 
I contend that not receiving compensation/finder’s fee/commission/bonus for this significant change in scope is passing on an opportunity.

Just to be clear> For a little more coin in our pocket the big RJ's will then be OK.
You got yours I guess, Disgusting.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top