Originally Posted by
Sink r8
I like much of what you wrote in that post, but you have to admit that the part quoted is pretty funny. Ignore them, but believe me that profits are going up and up!
I think the undeniable fact is that the future value of the PS is speculative. Personally, I've thought Delta was a good investment for several years. I don't base that at all on what we employees are being told, but based on what the owners are being told via earning calls and guidance, and even that, I usually discount. Overall, I want upside protection, but I'm also reducing my exposure to the stock. For the same reasons, it might be OK to have a little less exposure to the company's performance via PS, if it implies a trade in addition to rate increases, not a self-funded "raise".
Thing is, I have absolutely no idea how you could prove the result was one or the other.
Sink,
You are exactly correct - if we reduce PS during section 6 we have no idea how much we are "paying" for our raise.
You would have to monetize PS separate from section 6.
For instance this past year we received about 16% from PS. So if we got a 25 raise contingent upon eliminating PS it would actually be a 9% raise.
Would 9% in this negotiating environment even be considered a single in the ever present baseball analogy? Maybe a fielders choice with a RBI for good measure.
Granted - it would be "less" at risk than PS but not totally without risk which should be totally obvious to all since we are still not even up to C-2000 rates.
Scoop