|
Originally Posted by PilotJ3
(Post 3990839)
I rather have a bigger paycheck than PS. Considering also that PS has a higher tax bill than regular wages.
The more I make, the less I work. The less I work, the more time I have to live. |
Originally Posted by PilotJ3
(Post 3990839)
I rather have a bigger paycheck than PS. Considering also that PS has a higher tax bill than regular wages.
The more I make, the less I work. The less I work, the more time I have to live. |
Originally Posted by Hubcapped
(Post 3990861)
oh god not this again. You will enjoy ONE contract cycle with higher wages. All subsequent contracts will then match united and american and that ps check in febuary that could give you 30 years of extra money will have been invested for just a boost in one 3 year cycle. Auto no vote if they touch my ps
|
Originally Posted by dbrownie
(Post 3990832)
?.???????!!!!!
Who talks like this? What does he want pay cuts? That was pretty much the end of the convo….for most of the trip. It was actually sad to hear someone talk like that—they don’t understand how this works. |
Originally Posted by Hubcapped
(Post 3990861)
oh god not this again. You will enjoy ONE contract cycle with higher wages. All subsequent contracts will then match united and american and that ps check in febuary that could give you 30 years of extra money will have been invested for just a boost in one 3 year cycle. Auto no vote if they touch my ps
wages > bonuses. We are all in agreement there. Nobody’s talking about trading PS for an hourly bump. |
Originally Posted by TED74
(Post 3990825)
By “technology”, I think you actually mean leadership? Investment decisions?
We also have tools in our PWA that they can use, but don’t. VAS for example…. |
Originally Posted by TegridyFarms
(Post 3990818)
I flew with a FO recently that said “our contract is costing the company too much money.”
Ok. So what? Is the company still making money? “But our profit sharing will be down?” Ok. So what? Our wages are up. This company is still making BILLIONS of dollars. Profit sharing is profit sharing. A contract is a contract. ALPA and the company agreed to the contract. Our wages as a group aren’t that big of a deal. Saying we (or our contract) are too expensive is disingenuous at best. A lot of the inefficiencies at this company can be traced back to technology, or lack thereof. |
Originally Posted by 172skychicken
(Post 3990776)
They were guiding for a stronger Q4 vs last year. That combined low fuel prices mean that I wouldn't write off 10% just yet. Usually they update guidance if they're tracking for a large miss. Wall street reacts very negatively to large misses on earnings day.
call me a permabear |
Originally Posted by PilotJ3
(Post 3990839)
I rather have a bigger paycheck than PS. Considering also that PS has a higher tax bill than regular wages.
The more I make, the less I work. The less I work, the more time I have to live. |
Originally Posted by PilotJ3
(Post 3990839)
I rather have a bigger paycheck than PS. Considering also that PS has a higher tax bill than regular wages.
The more I make, the less I work. The less I work, the more time I have to live. |
Originally Posted by TegridyFarms
(Post 3990818)
I flew with a FO recently that said “our contract is costing the company too much money.”
Ok. So what? Is the company still making money? “But our profit sharing will be down?” Ok. So what? Our wages are up. This company is still making BILLIONS of dollars. Profit sharing is profit sharing. A contract is a contract. ALPA and the company agreed to the contract. Our wages as a group aren’t that big of a deal. Saying we (or our contract) are too expensive is disingenuous at best. A lot of the inefficiencies at this company can be traced back to technology, or lack thereof. |
Originally Posted by texas1970
(Post 3990928)
High amounts of profit sharing just means that there is more money/benefits left on the table that the company could be putting into our PWA.
|
Originally Posted by ebl14
(Post 3990943)
Exactly. You can trust these managers with too much extra cash. Last time we were sitting on piles of cash they burned it by the truckload on stock buybacks instead of refreshing our aging IT, aging airplanes, etc…
|
Originally Posted by ebl14
(Post 3990943)
Exactly. You can trust these managers with too much extra cash. Last time we were sitting on piles of cash they burned it by the truckload on stock buybacks instead of refreshing our aging IT, aging airplanes, etc…
|
Originally Posted by WIPilot
(Post 3990909)
please go look up the difference between taxes and tax withholding.
And to everyone else, no…I’m not advocating trade PS for rates. |
Originally Posted by brakechatter
(Post 3990860)
Yeah, that's a problem. There is only so far we are going to be allowed to be ahead of industry leading pay rates. Profit sharing allows that extra push. It takes us to 11. In profitable times, our compensation outweighs our peers. In tight times, we are still industry leading. And while your PS is withheld at a higher rate, your final tax bill will be at your income rate including the rest of your taxable income. Perhaps that doesn't change your mind, but you are in the very small minority.
But if the pilot group bill is higher, is not our fault. I’m actually glad everyone that I know made a crap ton of money last couple of months. Have a friend got around 200hrs credit last month, another got 70hrs in 23M7, I personally only flew one trip in a GS that got me off almost a month and 98hrs of pay on RSV. All this wasted money means that in the next PWA, we have leverage. So that FO saying we make too much money, is wrong. His PS % might be lower, but it just means he wants people making less money, so he can have more bonus. |
Originally Posted by dk104444
(Post 3990457)
If credit card interest got capped at 10%. This might be our last profit sharing year.
|
Originally Posted by ebl14
(Post 3990943)
Exactly. You can trust these managers with too much extra cash. Last time we were sitting on piles of cash they burned it by the truckload on stock buybacks instead of refreshing our aging IT, aging airplanes, etc…
|
Originally Posted by ebl14
(Post 3990943)
Exactly. You can trust these managers with too much extra cash. Last time we were sitting on piles of cash they burned it by the truckload on stock buybacks instead of refreshing our aging IT, aging airplanes, etc…
|
Originally Posted by tennisguru
(Post 3990743)
Yeah but we sold the ATL employee lot to boost our earnings... :D
|
Originally Posted by overqualified52
(Post 3991131)
If they sold the C tower and employee lot in MSP they could make a few more Bucs 👽
|
Last min call here.....6%. Six percent.
Yeah. |
Originally Posted by OOfff
(Post 3990719)
interest revenue is only about ~20-25% of amex’s revenue. if that got cut in half, it might change how their business operates, but they (and we) will still be fine.
most of amex revenue is in the merchant fees |
Originally Posted by iahflyr
(Post 3991334)
Do you mind citing this source? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’d be curious to see this information.
|
Originally Posted by iahflyr
(Post 3991334)
Do you mind citing this source? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’d be curious to see this information.
|
8.9%
filler |
Originally Posted by Viper25
(Post 3991442)
8.9%
filler wonder what it would have been without 23M7… |
Originally Posted by OOfff
(Post 3990742)
ps accrual 986m vs 964m through q3, up 2.2%.
wages and salaries up 7% through q3 last year was 10.02%. |
Originally Posted by Viper25
(Post 3991442)
8.9%
filler |
Originally Posted by DisMyGamerTag
(Post 3991448)
wonder what it would have been without 23M7…
Overall costs are up and we didn't meaningfully grow revenue. 23m7 is a drop in the bucket. The forecast for 2026 looks good though. So we have that to look forward to if all goes well. |
Originally Posted by TegridyFarms
(Post 3990818)
I flew with a FO recently that said “our contract is costing the company too much money.”
Ok. So what? Is the company still making money? “But our profit sharing will be down?” Ok. So what? Our wages are up. This company is still making BILLIONS of dollars. Profit sharing is profit sharing. A contract is a contract. ALPA and the company agreed to the contract. Our wages as a group aren’t that big of a deal. Saying we (or our contract) are too expensive is disingenuous at best. A lot of the inefficiencies at this company can be traced back to technology, or lack thereof. |
Originally Posted by Planetrain
(Post 3990513)
I’ll take the other side- with interest capped at 10%, people will go just deeper in debt since it’s on sale.
Yes, merchant fees make up ~50% of a credit card companies revenues, but those merchant fees also go way down when you can’t offer credit to a big number of your borrowers It’s the old Soviet bread line concept. Sounds like socialism… |
Originally Posted by iahflyr
(Post 3991505)
It doesn’t work that way. Credit card interest is at its current level because that is what is required to make credit cards profitable. If interest is artificially capped at 10%, companies will stop offering credit card debt to people with credit scores that are no longer profitable with 10% interest (Perhaps anyone with less than a 700 or so credit score).
Yes, merchant fees make up ~50% of a credit card companies revenues, but those merchant fees also go way down when you can’t offer credit to a big number of your borrowers It’s the old Soviet bread line concept. Sounds like socialism… Generally speaking, America is dumb and financially irresponsible. A majority of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Less than 50% could come up with $1000 in the event of an emergency. Inflation is out of control, Instagram convinces people to buy stuff they don’t want, to impress people they don’t even like, with money they don’t have. There are more than enough low default risk, mid to high income earners that would go into CC debt at 10% and still be profitable for Visa, Amex, and MC. As they go further into debt, or jump in for the first time (the “debt curious”), the banks make up their loss in interest rate though volume and higher volume in merchant fees. And so what if an issuer bank defaults? Our federal reserve will rescue and bail them out in a heart beat. Exhibit A Great Recession, exhibit B Signature Bank of NY, exhibit C Silicon Valley Bank. |
Originally Posted by Planetrain
(Post 3991520)
Banks have a virtually limitless amount of capital through the Federal Reserve. The cost of capital is roughly 3.5-3.75% plus a small premium. If credit card interest is capped at 10% there is still plenty of room for profit. I concede that there is a subset of card holders with poor credit that due to the risk of collective defaults, will not have additional credit extended to them. But to the higher credit scores, many that would seek credit elsewhere (home equity, loans, 401k loans, BNPL etc), they no longer will have to shudder at 24.9%-30%APRs. The penalty for going deeper in debt is significantly cut and people will aggressively make purchases.
Generally speaking, America is dumb and financially irresponsible. A majority of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Less than 50% could come up with $1000 in the event of an emergency. Inflation is out of control, Instagram convinces people to buy stuff they don’t want, to impress people they don’t even like, with money they don’t have. There are more than enough low default risk, mid to high income earners that would go into CC debt at 10% and still be profitable for Visa, Amex, and MC. As they go further into debt, or jump in for the first time (the “debt curious”), the banks make up their loss in interest rate though volume and higher volume in merchant fees. And so what if an issuer bank defaults? Our federal reserve will rescue and bail them out in a heart beat. Exhibit A Great Recession, exhibit B Signature Bank of NY, exhibit C Silicon Valley Bank. |
I made sure to vote after the numbers came out so i was right. Chalk up another W
|
Originally Posted by nene
(Post 3991523)
There was a bill in congress a couple years ago that would eliminate/restrict the CCard companies ability to offer rewards/miles and restrict merchant fees. All in the spirit of "fairness". If that bill made it to the light of day it would surely change the paradigm that the legacy airlines operate in.
https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/s...118s1838is.pdf |
Originally Posted by Casualinterest
(Post 3990544)
Don’t worry guys, a wife on the pilot wives group said her husband knows a guy and it’s 9%. So I mean, go ahead and spend it
Originally Posted by Gone Flying
(Post 3990730)
agreed. I think they might find a way to be slightly more profitable than last year for ego reasons, but there is no way the % stays the same due to the wage base increasing.
I’m guessing 9.1 ish
Originally Posted by m3113n1a1
(Post 3990733)
I'm going 8.5ish. Wage base is up, profits essentially flat.
Originally Posted by OOfff
(Post 3990742)
ps accrual 986m vs 964m through q3, up 2.2%.
wages and salaries up 7% through q3 last year was 10.02% anyone counting on 10% is gonna be disappointed. |
Originally Posted by Crimson
(Post 3990388)
Approaching that time of year again. What are your guesses or rumors?
Now is a good time to remind the uninformed that the Delta Air Line Pilots Association—our union—negotiated the profit-sharing program in 2004 under LOA #46 (2004) (see Delta Pilot’s Contract History). This agreement coincided with the termination/freeze of our pensions and the first of two major pay cuts. That initial cut was 32.5%. Management told us these concessions were necessary to avoid bankruptcy, and the union approved the agreement on that basis. Ten months later, Delta filed for bankruptcy on 9/14/05—the same day as NWA. Coincidence? The bankruptcy led to LOA #50 (2005) and LOA #51 (2006), along with the termination of our pilot pension and transfer to the PBGC. A second pay cut followed—an additional 14%. In exchange for these concessions, the pilot union negotiated profit sharing at 15% of pre-tax income, and 20% on pre-tax income over $1.5 billion. Delta and NWA announced their merger on 4/14/08. Since then, Delta management has repeatedly sought—and in some cases succeeded—in reducing the profit-sharing formula. The first reduction occurred in 2008: profit sharing dropped to 10% of pre-tax income up to $2.5 billion, and the 20% threshold was raised from $1.5 billion to $2.5 billion. Each year around profit-sharing season, management promotes a narrative that they deserve full credit for both creating and paying out profit sharing. That is simply false. The profit-sharing program exists because it was negotiated by the pilot union—period. Since its inception, management has worked to reduce its value, not expand it. I am merely setting expectations for the next profit-sharing letter. PS. I post this every year. Because every year there is some management letter that tells us Delta gives us the PS payout out of the goodness of their hearts. If that were true why do they try to cut the payout scheme every chance they get? |
Originally Posted by AirbusPTC
(Post 3991579)
Many of you may have, by now, read the 13JAN26 “Profit Sharing” article published today by management. Articles like this appear regularly in the run-up to the February profit-sharing payout. T ypically, the message implies that Delta pays profit sharing purely out of goodwill. This year’s first letter is somewhat more restrained and does not state that directly, but once again there is no mention of the Delta Air Line Pilots Association’s role in securing employee profit sharing.
Now is a good time to remind the uninformed that the Delta Air Line Pilots Association—our union—negotiated the profit-sharing program in 2004 under LOA #46 (2004) (see Delta Pilot’s Contract History). This agreement coincided with the termination/freeze of our pensions and the first of two major pay cuts. That initial cut was 32.5%. Management told us these concessions were necessary to avoid bankruptcy, and the union approved the agreement on that basis. Ten months later, Delta filed for bankruptcy on 9/14/05—the same day as NWA. Coincidence? The bankruptcy led to LOA #50 (2005) and LOA #51 (2006), along with the termination of our pilot pension and transfer to the PBGC. A second pay cut followed—an additional 14%. In exchange for these concessions, the pilot union negotiated profit sharing at 15% of pre-tax income, and 20% on pre-tax income over $1.5 billion. Delta and NWA announced their merger on 4/14/08. Since then, Delta management has repeatedly sought—and in some cases succeeded—in reducing the profit-sharing formula. The first reduction occurred in 2008: profit sharing dropped to 10% of pre-tax income up to $2.5 billion, and the 20% threshold was raised from $1.5 billion to $2.5 billion. Each year around profit-sharing season, management promotes a narrative that they deserve full credit for both creating and paying out profit sharing. That is simply false. The profit-sharing program exists because it was negotiated by the pilot union—period. Since its inception, management has worked to reduce its value, not expand it. I am merely setting expectations for the next profit-sharing letter. PS. I post this every year. Because every year there is some management letter that tells us Delta gives us the PS payout out of the goodness of their hearts. If that were true why do they try to cut the payout scheme every chance they get? |
So 8.9% for the win. What was last year’s?
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:37 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands