|
|
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1684591)
AE is up. Wow.
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1684598)
Jerry, profit sharing will probably never exceed 10% even in the very best year. I think we are on track for 9 to 10 this year. If we could convert that to 8% in pay I would take it. This assumes we get that as a additional raise. Raises compound and are there regardless of profits. Record profits can turn into record losses in months in this industry.
As for trading PS for pay, I hate to admit I actually agree with Jerry on this one. My reasoning is much different from his though. Management wants/needs the flexibility to reduce costs when revenues turn south which they inevitably do in this industry. So, tying a portion of pilot costs to profit sharing means they might pay more than they want in good times, but get to pay less in bad times. And in the long run, I think we end up with more pay with a profit sharing component because of that. They can't argue they can't afford the profit sharing piece, because by definition, it's coming out of profits. And they can keep our hourly rate in line with the competition, but if Delta does well, we can all benefit from that. I say, don't touch it. And I've been around long enough to fully realize this economic cycle will end, and our PS will dry up in the coming years; but I'm still OK with that. |
Originally Posted by Gearjerk
(Post 1684592)
450 positions! :eek:
Hope they backfill the ER |
Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy
(Post 1684616)
and I believe our YTD profits far exceed this time last year, so I don't think 12-15% is out of the realm of possibilities.
|
Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy
(Post 1684616)
sailing, I think you might be pleasantly surprised. Profit sharing was 8.2% last year, and I believe our YTD profits far exceed this time last year, so I don't think 12-15% is out of the realm of possibilities.
As for trading PS for pay, I hate to admit I actually agree with Jerry on this one. My reasoning is much different from his though. Management wants/needs the flexibility to reduce costs when revenues turn south which they inevitably do in this industry. So, tying a portion of pilot costs to profit sharing means they might pay more than they want in good times, but get to pay less in bad times. And in the long run, I think we end up with more pay with a profit sharing component because of that. They can't argue they can't afford the profit sharing piece, because by definition, it's coming out of profits. And they can keep our hourly rate in line with the competition, but if Delta does well, we can all benefit from that. I say, don't touch it. And I've been around long enough to fully realize this economic cycle will end, and our PS will dry up in the coming years; but I'm still OK with that. I agree with your point on the cost of profit sharing. I don't see the 12 to 15 you mention. Last year we had 3.4 billion in profit for the calculations. To hit 12% would probably require 5 billion plus this year. |
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1684628)
Imagine what it would be if we hadn't given up the profit sharing.
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1684635)
I agree with your point on the cost of profit sharing. I don't see the 12 to 15 you mention. Last year we had 3.4 billion in profit for the calculations. To hit 12% would probably require 5 billion plus this year.
I think we will see 10%-12%. And there will be no downturn for.years. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1684607)
ATL reps said the same thing that was posted. They were in the loop.
It's interesting that the DTW rep who always seems to have a different take on things voted against the Narita deal and then turned around and touted it as one of the great accomplishments of KR during the discussions to remove him. That left some confusion amongst those listening to him!! As far as C2012, and the issues leading up to it, there's been a turnover in the DTW reps since then. The interesting thing is the current ATL reps were ALSO turned over, and as far as I can figure, only one of them was at the table at the time. It would be more accurate to say "one of them was in the loop". I'm sure you'd get at least 2 versions of what went on, same as the 117 LOA. Nu |
Originally Posted by Fly4hire
(Post 1684567)
And you sir are perhaps having some selective and contextual memory lapses as well while still being factual :rolleyes:. To wit a conference call does not constitute a meeting for parliamentary process, and "direction" can only be given in a meeting. The majority "opinion" during the call was do not trade profit sharing for pay. Why was it done? Because the MEC Ch and Negs danced around "direction" - the Reps didn't direct them not to because they couldn't because it wasn't a meeting. I recall a special meeting was proposed over the issue and the admin was adamant it was not necessary - in retrospect likely because direction might have been given contrary to where they wanted to go with PS for pay.
76 seaters were in the discussion *after* the 717 proposal was pitched by the company. That was not in the beginning of negotiations. Of course my memory might be faulty also :p Great response. Don't know what is better, the post ^^ or the AE. |
Originally Posted by NuGuy
(Post 1684647)
And the reps who voted for the Narita Deal, and claimed it was a great accomplishment at the time, voted to recall KR, so, what's the point there?
As far as C2012, and the issues leading up to it, there's been a turnover in the DTW reps since then. The interesting thing is the current ATL reps were ALSO turned over, and as far as I can figure, only one of them was at the table at the time. It would be more accurate to say "one of them was in the loop". I'm sure you'd get at least 2 versions of what went on, same as the 117 LOA. Nu fed up with politics from every group |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:48 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands