Originally Posted by DALFA (Post 3217404)

Just read the "update" and it's a bit confusing. Interesting enough, the update is in the FlightOps memo and there's nothing about it on the InFlight side.

Originally Posted by Hawaii50 (Post 3217310)

While we're comparing strategies during the pandemic not sure I'd want to trade places with United pilots. United flies about 250 more RJ's than we do (DL 344, UAL 599, AAL 560) while we brought the 717 and A220s into the mainline fleet. That's quite a few mainline jobs. When I look around at the "partnerships" at AAL with JetBlue and Alaska, I think we're in a pretty good spot as a pilot group. We also instantly add near 30% capacity when the middle seat block goes away. We'll be fine IMO.

Originally Posted by N6279P (Post 3217463)

How’s that wide body fleet looking?

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3217563)

It's already forgotten. Morgan Stanley just put a $72 price target on DAL.

https://seekingalpha.com/news/367945...=seeking_alpha

Originally Posted by JamesBond (Post 3217819)

Interesting that AAL shows a price decline. I wonder what MS is looking at. Debt? Our balance sheet ain't that pretty anymore. Not that much better than AAL's anyway.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 3216979)

The cancelations yesterday were in fact mostly driven by a very liberal employee covid vaccination policy. Admittedly they should have anticipated the result.

Originally Posted by DWC CAP10 USAF (Post 3218142)

To quote POTUS: "Come on man!"

I am not an affected pilot nor did I ever convert to UNA.....I've been waiting for a SRQ since end of Dec 2020....public school maths says that was 4 months ago.

How many guys/gals are waiting 30+ days for OE?

This meltdown was 100% not because a few employees scheduled a vaccine shot over easter weekend....it's because Flt Ops "leadership" has been making terrible manning decisions for the last 6-9 months!

Originally Posted by DWC CAP10 USAF (Post 3218142)

To quote POTUS: "Come on man!"

I am not an affected pilot nor did I ever convert to UNA.....I've been waiting for a SRQ since end of Dec 2020....public school maths says that was 4 months ago.

How many guys/gals are waiting 30+ days for OE?

This meltdown was 100% not because a few employees scheduled a vaccine shot over easter weekend....it's because Flt Ops "leadership" has been making terrible manning decisions for the last 6-9 months!

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3218103)

AAL had a large debt load prior to Covid19. After some research it looks like they are continuing that plan going forward and adding to it. The plan to use the cash store from increased debt to fund airplanes and operations. SWA and DAL plan to pay off the new debt and are able to use cash for airplanes. The relative debt load is the largest disparity between the companies.



AALs new bonds yield 5+% so investors in bonds have taken a heavy stake in the company which devalues equity. $6.5B in new bonds and $3.5B in new loans and a total debt load of $50B. They pushed out the maturities to try and take full advantage of the impending recovery and growth. They are making a much higher stakes bet on the return of air travel than DAL. DAL bonds are yielding 3ish% and are more linear in maturities. AAL has added $550M in annual interest payments while all indications for DAL is an aggressive debt pay down after cash neutral is no longer the objective.



That strategy at DAL means low profit sharing payouts short term and huge amounts in a few years. Low payouts relative to our high water mark, but in line with UAL. This situation will seem like a good reason to sell profit sharing but it will be hugely back loaded giving management a window to negotiate it away with a relatively quick TA. This works well for DALs resumption of sect. 6 as they will point to no and then low profit sharing payouts for 2020 and 2021 in an effort to take it back. There will be an appetite for a new deal when things turn around and I think the MEC chair will be motivated to deal to get something done which also will help management. The pilot group will also be impatient and hopefully won’t overlook the mounting profit margins as we go forward.



Morgan Stanley also sees the 2-3 year horizon for DAL and will ratchet up their target. DAL management laid the ground work for a ~ $100 target prior to Covid19. See the previous investor presentations on delta.com.



https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/american-airlines-joins-debt-market-behemoths-11615973407

Originally Posted by DWC CAP10 USAF (Post 3218142)

To quote POTUS: "Come on man!"

I am not an affected pilot nor did I ever convert to UNA.....I've been waiting for a SRQ since end of Dec 2020....public school maths says that was 4 months ago.

How many guys/gals are waiting 30+ days for OE?

This meltdown was 100% not because a few employees scheduled a vaccine shot over easter weekend....it's because Flt Ops "leadership" has been making terrible manning decisions for the last 6-9 months!

Originally Posted by Trip7 (Post 3218163)

Why does DAL's strategy mean lower profit sharing payout? The strategy you describe for Delta results in lower interest payments which boosts the income statement.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Trip7 (Post 3218163)

Why does DAL's strategy mean lower profit sharing payout? The strategy you describe for Delta results in lower interest payments which boosts the income statement.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Planetrain (Post 3218182)

Lower interest payments yes, but PTIX is lower when you pay down principal.

Originally Posted by fishforfun (Post 3218164)

Time for the union to do its job and publish the facts of how many are sitting NQAT, awaiting OE or any other reason they are not working. These were all avoidable had we followed a similar sequence of events that SW did in terms of employee leaves and early retirements PRIOR to displacements. What caused the thanksgiving meltdown? Must have been those terrible pilots getting secretly vaccinated then too.

Originally Posted by fishforfun (Post 3218164)

No kidding on the cab ride to the airport had an FA announce to the rest of us that she watched some town hall yesterday. Her recollection was that this was out of the companies hands and they couldn’t do anything to prevent it. And that it was caused by pilots calling in because of vaccines. She was quickly shot down.

Time for the union to do its job and publish the facts of how many are sitting NQAT, awaiting OE or any other reason they are not working. These were all avoidable had we followed a similar sequence of events that SW did in terms of employee leaves and early retirements PRIOR to displacements. What caused the thanksgiving meltdown? Must have been those terrible pilots getting secretly vaccinated then too.

Originally Posted by BigHitterLlama (Post 3218302)

Well, there’s a BL email out telling whole company that it was pilots calling out for vaccines. 10% increase in vaccinations in one week. This should be interesting.

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3218103)

This situation will seem like a good reason to sell profit sharing but it will be hugely back loaded giving management a window to negotiate it away with a relatively quick TA.

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 3218314)

That ship has sailed. I don't think one penny in lower PS or a single additional large RJ is even entertained at the table. If anything, low PS paypout is the perfect time to get incresed PS going forward. A return to the C2012 threshold for first tier plus a substantial additional percentage of any future shareholder burnkacks on top of that is a very reasonable ask; it only comes into play if there's massive profits and they can be afforded in the first place...

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3218322)

New ALPA leadership and many new voters, while a lot who knew the history of the company’s right pocket to left pocket proposal are gone does help their quest. They will come after PS again. This time hopefully ALPA won’t promote this terrible idea.

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 3218322)

New ALPA leadership and many new voters, while a lot who knew the history of the company’s right pocket to left pocket proposal are gone does help their quest. They will come after PS again. This time hopefully ALPA won’t promote this terrible idea.

Originally Posted by Buck Rogers (Post 3218341)

Mostly agree. But if the new pilots think the old heads are "Boomers" with an attitude of "this isnt my first rodeo" and fail to listen and weigh what others have learned, it can be a slippery slope.

Not trying to start any arguments but I have seen both sides of this on full display here. I feel most pilots are more fact based and less emotion based which should serve in good stead as far as... NEVER MONITIZE PROFIT SHARING AGAIN!

Originally Posted by Buck Rogers (Post 3218341)

Mostly agree. But if the new pilots think the old heads are "Boomers" with an attitude of "this isnt my first rodeo" and fail to listen and weigh what others have learned, it can be a slippery slope.

Not trying to start any arguments but I have seen both sides of this on full display here. I feel most pilots are more fact based and less emotion based which should serve in good stead as far as... NEVER MONITIZE PROFIT SHARING AGAIN!

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 3218390)

The reduction in profit sharing that was monetized in the 2012 contract was about 1.9% in return for an additional 2% in pay rates. Those rates became the cornerstone of almost every contract at the major airlines moving forward and that 2% has compounded with subsequent raises to about 3%. I guess the question becomes would we have the exact same rates today or would they be 3% lower had we not monetized that money. The one thing I do know for sure is I got paid that 3% last year and profit sharing was zero. I suspect our current rates would in fact be lower had we not done that as raising rates across the industry is always a stepping stone approach across the major airlines. Our 2012 contract broke open a long term stagnation airline managements managed to hold onto far longer than they should have been able to maintain.

Originally Posted by GucciBoy (Post 3218407)

That’s a lot of words to say that you don’t think hourly rates will be industry standard with or without P.S. There’s no way we accept lower-than-standard pay rates in section 6, so why bolster them with a P.S. trade?

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 3218390)

The one thing I do know for sure is I got paid that 3% last year and profit sharing was zero.

Originally Posted by sailingfun;[url=tel:3218390

3218390[/url]]The reduction in profit sharing that was monetized in the 2012 contract was about 1.9% in return for an additional 2% in pay rates. Those rates became the cornerstone of almost every contract at the major airlines moving forward and that 2% has compounded with subsequent raises to about 3%. I guess the question becomes would we have the exact same rates today or would they be 3% lower had we not monetized that money. The one thing I do know for sure is I got paid that 3% last year and profit sharing was zero. I suspect our current rates would in fact be lower had we not done that as raising rates across the industry is always a stepping stone approach across the major airlines. Our 2012 contract broke open a long term stagnation airline managements managed to hold onto far longer than they should have been able to maintain.

Originally Posted by Gunfighter (Post 3218256)

Can you back up that claim with an accounting reference?



My reading of the PWA and understanding of GAAP leads to a different conclusion.



PTIX = Pre-tax income based on GAAP -PWA Section 2 216

Principle payments do not lower taxable income according to GAAP. https://i.imgflip.com/54q3o0.jpg

Originally Posted by Gunfighter (Post 3218256)

Principle payments do not lower taxable income according to GAAP. https://i.imgflip.com/54q3o0.jpg

Originally Posted by FL370esq (Post 3218448)

Principle payments might lower income merely because they are based on principle but principal payments don't. 😁

Originally Posted by Gunfighter (Post 3218485)

F... (not iller or ixed). Thanks for the correction.

https://i.imgflip.com/54rska.jpg

Originally Posted by GucciBoy (Post 3218407)

That’s a lot of words to say that you don’t think hourly rates will be industry standard with or without P.S. There’s no way we accept lower-than-standard pay rates in section 6, so why bolster them with a P.S. trade?

Originally Posted by Buck Rogers (Post 3218449)

I think the flaw in sailings thoughts is time and patten bargaining. At first blush what he said is true. But, after we monitized PS...the other carriers came along and demanded Delta or better rates....so they capitalized on our monitization. So, now fast forward a coupla contracts with pattern bargaining and Delta pay will equal AA and UAL. IOW...other carriers reap the rewards of us monetizing the PS. If your time frame is 1 possibly 2contracts....you are prolly money ahead on the switch....if you have multiple contracts I'd stall with the current PS. The bigger negotiating gambit is who( which carrier) settles first...in an improving economy..I would rather not be first


Additionally...straight line pay rates shine like a beacon and even the most inept Wall Street guy can parse the cost.....PS is much harder to cost out consequently less damaging to stock price.....we may not care....but the exes do

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 3218390)

The reduction in profit sharing that was monetized in the 2012 contract was about 1.9% in return for an additional 2% in pay rates. Those rates became the cornerstone of almost every contract at the major airlines moving forward and that 2% has compounded with subsequent raises to about 3%. I guess the question becomes would we have the exact same rates today or would they be 3% lower had we not monetized that money. The one thing I do know for sure is I got paid that 3% last year and profit sharing was zero. I suspect our current rates would in fact be lower had we not done that as raising rates across the industry is always a stepping stone approach across the major airlines. Our 2012 contract broke open a long term stagnation airline managements managed to hold onto far longer than they should have been able to maintain.

Originally Posted by Hawaii50 (Post 3217310)

While we're comparing strategies during the pandemic not sure I'd want to trade places with United pilots. United flies about 250 more RJ's than we do (DL 344, UAL 599, AAL 560) while we brought the 717 and A220s into the mainline fleet. That's quite a few mainline jobs. When I look around at the "partnerships" at AAL with JetBlue and Alaska, I think we're in a pretty good spot as a pilot group. We also instantly add near 30% capacity when the middle seat block goes away. We'll be fine IMO.