SOFA

There is one most important aspect to PS that is worth mentioning. If we all share in the profits, then we all gain. That means every bag loaded is likely to be loaded more efficient; every IROP dealt with more effectively; every passenger cared for with more affection; and for the big money, the pilots making the smartest decisions with the big money. Of our thousands of daily flights, we have the smarts and the savvy to save the company money in fuel and assets to make us more profitable. We should all share in the profits. That’s a great model. Never give it up.

Baradium

But it is also a nonfixed cost that does NOT impact company profitability as it goes away before the company posts a lost.

Additionally, I would posit that while the company is aware of the money outlay, it does not have the same impact to the NMB as they put a lot of weight on the actual pay rates and comparison among other companies.

This is also true of competitor negotiation patterns. Pay rates are quickly approached, it is outside areas that are not. Moving our profit sharing to pay would have a distinct advantage to other pilot groups as their pay moved to match ours while they got to keep their currently worse profit sharing while we would then have nothing.

Additionally, in a future down turn, profit sharing does not have a cost to a company not turning a profit while higher pay rates do. Thus, profit sharing can provide an automatic spring back to pay rates when times get better again. Pay rates alone are a tempting target for a bankruptcy court.

waldo135

False. If the company makes no profit, we get nothing. There is no ‘cost’ to profit sharing. Not sure what your agenda is, but you’re flat out wrong.

Hank Kingsley

And they'll ask for that pay raise back, the one you exchanged for profit sharing. Get a clue.

sailingfun

The company would disagree. If there were no cost to profit sharing every company would offer it. The cost last year was 1.1 billion.
Using your logic income taxes cost you nothing. They cost me quite a lot.

tennisguru

They don't cost a company who is losing money and in bankruptcy anything. Also if you made no money you wouldn't owe taxes either...

sailingfun

I think you made my point.

Scoop

You really need to think this through. Whatever PS is monetized vanishes during the next section 6 negotiation and is gone forever.

We made that mistake on C-2012 and what do we have to show for it? Two things jack and squat. Did anyone take our monetized PS from C-2012 into account during C-2015 section 6? Nope, it was like it never happened.

You are correct however in that we won't be making money forever but when we return to making money, and we will, PS kicks in automatically - with no concessions required. Much better to keep a robust PS component of our compensation in the long run. If we trade PS for pay rates and then lose money, well unfortunately we have all seen that show. It took over 10 years to return to 2000 rates at a very high cost concession wise. Much better to ride it out with PS.

Scoop

trustbutverify

Yes, the company would disagree - only because management wants to share as little of the pie as possible. It's not like the company needs to plan it's revenue stream to make sure they make those profit sharing obligations.

Denny Crane

Uhhhhhhh, I don't think what you are saying is correct. From what i remember Dalpa saying, our percentage of the profit sharing pool did not/does not change based on the percentage non contract personnel get. When the company cut their percentage, we got the same amount as if their percentage had not changed. The company just kept the difference. Now that difference is going back to the non contract employees. It shouldn't affect us at all. At least that's my understanding.

IOW, we didn't get more when they got less and now we won't get less because they are getting more.

Denny