Originally Posted by
DeadHead
Pushing for a 5% reduction n profit sharing should be a pretty good indicator to all that DAL is looking to make a hefty profit this year.
I'm sure there forecast as of now probably puts them just over the $2.5 billion dollar range. The 4% increase in pilot payroll maybe the extra few million to keep profits under that $2.5 billion dollar mark.
That's a jump in profit sharing of $250 million if management makes $2.5 billion or more. I'm not saying the entire business plan is structured around that, but I'm sure it's definitely something they are looking at.
I think we, as pilots, need to cautious about voting this thing in to quickly.
That in itself isn't a reason to say NO, just something to be weary about.
Since I bring that up, what kind of possible timeline, barring a typical section 6 negotiation timeline, could we expect if we vote it down and have the negotiators sit back down to revise the TA?
I have hard time believing both sides will scrap the whole thing without trying to sweeten it a little in hopes to get it through.
That is the million or in our case billion dollar question. A few facts are:
We have a comprehensive TA that is out to the pilots. It was done in two months, and there are some major efficiencies gained for the company in it.
We could both dump the agreement and start over. True, but why would we after all of the progress over a few definitions and maybe a couple hundred million in valuation? I know I wouldn't.
We also forget that if this thing gets turned down, however likely or not, the current PWA states that the company and the association will exchange openers in 270 days from the amendable date.
With this fact, if it fails, I would fully expect DALPA to go back with a list of items that need to be tweaked in the current agreement to reach a TA. It could and should be considered our opener for the traditional process if it followed exactly where we were on the survey. If the company would not take that, DALPA is smart enough to have a second document with traditional section 6 needs.
Once seeing that, and the company evaluates the cost and time value of the savings they get in this TA, I would be very surprised to see them NOT reengage. Again, that is their choice and it is unknown. Logic needs to prevail though.
C20 Chair TT stated that the reduced MEMRAT window was dual driven. First, so that the pay goes in to effect on July 1 if it passes and more importantly, Two, that there is more time to negotiate if need be.
Now you all know that I look for the anomaly in the data, and that is it. My hunch is the reps are aware there is a timeline, and maybe aware of a go date for DAL. Even if they aren't they seem to be aware that there is time before the second step of DAL's business plan to get this right and planned accordingly.