Originally Posted by Gearjerk (Post 1679319)

As someone else posted, it normally averages the mandatory retirements, PLUS 1% of the seniority list. (~120) With 62 mandatory retirements this year, plus ~120 pilots, I expect to see ~182 pilot retirements for 2014. Approximately 71 remaining retirements for 2014. (Average six/month for remainder of the year, might be slightly low.) Next year, 170 mandatory retirements, plus 120 pilots lends to the possibility of 290 (2015) pilot retirements.

It's all a guess until it's in the past, but having our reps take a doubled number of retirements to the negotiating committee calling it "costed data" is doing nobody any good.

Kyle

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 1679269)

That makes sense. I agree completely that the bench should be deeper. I'd like to see term limits as a device to ensure new blood is required, and cycled through.

As for your point about regional guys coming up, I hope they don't get so wrapped-up around the relationship between mainline and regionals, that they lose track of the forest and the trees.

I tend to think the regional model is broken, and pilot recruitment issues will only accelerate the inevitable end. I suspect that flying will continue to migrate home naturally, and I would be nervous about guys trying to purchase it. When it gets to the point where management recognizes it, and shrinks the outsourced portion on their own, and doesn't even use the allotted 50-seaters, then we can negotiate to lock in the new numbers.

I'm OK with the Scope trade in C2012, but it's now more and more obvious that up-gaging, and transferring flying to mainline, is a logical process, driven by economics. Let's be patient, not yield anything on the RJ side, and focus on the large-gauge end of the outsourcing spectrum.

Originally Posted by Ferd149 (Post 1679285)

I mostly agree except for the bold part.

I've said probably a dozen times on here that profit sharing is a scam to make you feel "like part of the organization". Give me dollars that can't be manipulated by the accountants, either in direct compensation or work rules. For the life of me, I don't know how we ever got on this profit sharing bandwagon?:confused::mad:

Ferd

Originally Posted by Ferd149 (Post 1679305)

J,

NOPE........I'm not arguing we need to make any concessions.

But, profit sharing has to go! As I said, re-wicker it into other areas i.e. work rules for example that aren't taxable.

Look, we paid down debt (a good thing) but that is money that isn't available for profit sharing. We paid a dividend (an OK thing if you have your stock) but it's money not available for profit sharing. We are buying back stock.........see where I'm going?

As I said, we allowed management to get us into a compensation package they can manipulate and we have to get out from under it. Now is the time!

Ferd

PS Good to see you on here, haven't seen ya since Duke's in HNL:cool:

Originally Posted by Ferd149 (Post 1679312)

I will say this about profit sharing. I'm the only guy on here who thinks it's a bad thing..............so what does that tell ya:D

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1679341)

I'm with Uncle Ferd here.

Carl

Originally Posted by Ferd149 (Post 1679285)

I mostly agree except for the bold part.

I've said probably a dozen times on here that profit sharing is a scam to make you feel "like part of the organization". Give me dollars that can't be manipulated by the accountants, either in direct compensation or work rules. For the life of me, I don't know how we ever got on this profit sharing bandwagon?:confused::mad:

Ferd

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1679354)

Debt paydown and dividends are not deducted from the profit sharing calculations. It's not actually "profit sharing", it's a bonus payment based upon PTIX excluding one-time items.


I'd trade the rest of the 0-2.5B 10% and even 2.5-3.125B 20% portion (keeping the 20% above that) for 6.5% added to our pay rates in a New York minute.

I'm with you Ferd, pay rates compound into every other section of the contract and in future rates, PS is a fixed number forever.

I do like the "unlimited upside 20%" as a high side protection, but I prefer more of my compensation protected.

"4833" was/is definitely a misnomer... More accurate is 10.76/3/3 with a 4% bonus on half of 2012 earnings. (Standing by for incoming:D)

Originally Posted by buzzpat (Post 1679292)

You can also go onto the Net and select your aircraft type and then Hotels on the bottom right. It takes you right to the hotel's website. Also good for checking out eating and workout potential.

Originally Posted by Gearjerk (Post 1679319)

Jerry,

First of all, thank you for the reply PM. I agree that we must stand strong AGAINST concessions for C2015. In this time of record profits and industry health, I don't believe we should have to "trade" anything for contract improvements either.

Secondly, ya gotta stop using the previous six months of this year's retirements as a "data point" to "cost future retirements." :) It just doesn't hold water.

I mentioned in a previous post, you then replied, it IS NOT a linear curve, especially based on only the previous six months. Mandatory retirements are listed below:
2014: 62
2015: 170
2016: 229
2017: 287
2018: 416
2019: 511
2020: 613

With what you've stated, we should have 4576 retirements between 2014 & 2020? I wish, :D but that's not a realistic number.

As someone else posted, it normally averages the mandatory retirements, PLUS 1% of the seniority list. (~120) With 62 mandatory retirements this year, plus ~120 pilots, I expect to see ~182 pilot retirements for 2014. Approximately 71 remaining retirements for 2014. (Average six/month for remainder of the year, might be slightly low.) Next year, 170 mandatory retirements, plus 120 pilots lends to the possibility of 290 (2015) pilot retirements.

It's all a guess until it's in the past, but having our reps take a doubled number of retirements to the negotiating committee calling it "costed data" is doing nobody any good.

Thanks for your concern, at your seniority level. (I mean that.) :)

Kyle