Ad hominem attacks aside, you are still wrong. Your statement was "I guess this will put to rest who makes more between NW/DL["
Frankly, it does not.
You are trying to use stale cost data to prove that NWA flight attendants currently make more than Delta flight attendants.
If you were stating that in 2007, NWA flight attendants cost more than Delta flight attendants, I would agree. Your D.O.T. data, if true, supports that. But to say that the 2007 cost data proves that NWA flight attendants make more than their Delta counterparts in 2008 is wrong.
You have the burden of proof to support your statement "I guess this will put to rest who makes more between NW/DL[" is true. IMHO, the fact that we are debating it proves the debate has not been put to rest. Furthermore, I feel that the underlying logic that you use to support your statement is also flawed.
Now, you can call me as many names as you want, but it does not change the fact that the people reading this will decide for themselves whether it has been "put to rest."
"Ad hominem attacks ?"
Are you for REAL? It is not I who is in denial of the facts. Facts you ignore by presenting some absurd argument that "your bi weekly pay-roll deposits" had nothing to do with "costs". Now if that is not a detour of the facts, hell is having a cold snap.
I..don't have the burden of anything. You have the burden of comprehending a reliable source vs. cooked propaganda (which you gleefully digest). Even the Delta person that published your INCOMPLETE analysis admits that it is "not exact". I don't remember seeing a statement of that kind on the DOT chart.
Interpretation of facts is not subjective in my book (the end result is the FACT). So, what you need to do is dispute the DOT data with the DOT...frankly, I think the DOT is a helluva lot more experienced at this than you and me.
The FACT remains...MULTIPLE sources agree (including OUR senior New Delta management) that you (pre-merger Delta) cost less (compensation) than all other majors. Moreover, your rolling date of analysis is just that...rolling, 2007, 2008, 2009...we'll be at 2010 soon.
The DOT chart certainly puts to rest the issue for me...and many others who know the difference between a neutral federal agency vs. cooked up propaganda that admits to cooking (you can't properly cook the recipe with only 1/2 the ingredients).
Instead of trying to shirt the facts, you should at least attempt to support your argument with neutral, reliable sources vs. some bizarre statement of pay has nothing to do with cost. Then turn around and claim sincerity of position and victim-hood.
If, I may be of assistance in publishing the new YOY DOT 2008 data (once it has been collected sometime in 2009) I will be more than happy to. In the mean time. Our work rules and return to pre bankruptcy compensation continues to improve.
What is telling...is the FACT that there are some from Old Delta that insist on not having a contract even though those at New Delta with out contracts have inferior compensation to those with the highest compensation (management, pilots, NW FAs, and others who are contractual). I would suggest those from Old Delta seek the best compensation possible from their current package while combining the best from NW into a NEW contract. This issue for me is about what ALL of my colleagues at New Delta can get in a new contract.
My position and argument is for the improvement of all under a NEW contract.