|
|
Anyone else having issues logging into PBS with the latest update to Firefox?
|
Originally Posted by filejw
(Post 1780906)
yes...................
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1780955)
Fwiw it aims for the largest number then backwards if it can't give you what you want. Trivia, if the slide can be awarded to the max days but it can't build you a line then PBS will go back and move the slide a day and try again.
Carl |
Originally Posted by Hillbilly
(Post 1780676)
Carl, I'm not convinced (yet) that what you are stating is correct. The PTIX definition sounds like it would exclude a one time event like the purchase of 49% of VA. I could be wrong though as accounting is certainly not my forte. PTIX is defined as (bold is my emphasis):
“Pre-tax income” (PTIX) means, for any calendar year, the Company’s consolidated pre-tax income calculated in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the United States and as reported in the Company’s public securities filings but excluding: a) all asset write downs related to long term assets, b) gains or losses with respect to employee equity securities, c) gains or losses with respect to extraordinary, one-time or non-recurring events (including without limitation one-time transition or integration costs incurred in connection with the merger of the Company and Northwest Airlines Corporation during the two year period following the merger), and d) expense accrued with respect to the profit sharing plan. There seems to be a difference of opinion regarding the correct answer to the question. I just want to know the accurate answer and right now I do not. |
Originally Posted by Coronado
(Post 1781018)
The $300 or $360mm they paid Singapore for the 49% interest in Virgin has no effect on that years profits. That investment could be a bad investment or it could be a good investment. Right now it looks like a good investment as at the Investors Day presentation they said they are on track to have their full investment repaid by the end of 2015. While Virgin will be having more flying to the US than they did before, by redeploying aircraft from South Africa and India routes, it also means Delta will be taking over some additional slots at LHR that they otherwise would not have had, while at the same time improving Delta's competitiveness in the corporate market. Please consider the alternative, they could have taken those same $300 or $360mm and decided to buy 2 A380's and putting them to fly between SFO and HND. Whether they buy those aircraft with cash or debt or a combination that action does not affect profitability for that year in which the asset was acquired. However what you do with that asset and how much money it earns over the succeeding years determines your return. In this case if those hypothetical 2 A380's running SFO-HND at probably a 20% load factor or at fares way lower than the cost of the fuel would probably loose $100mm or $200mm a year But from a purely selfish point of view it would enable some senior 744/777 crews to fly some bigger metal.;)
|
Did anyone catch the talk about used A321's?
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1780641)
Well Carl here is section 1.E.3 you quote.
If the Company's ownership level (i.e., the percentage of ownership referred to in Section 23 1 B. 16. a.) in a foreign air carrier exceeds 25%, the Company flying block hours scheduled in any month between the United States and any country to or from which the foreign air carrier operates from or to the United States, will not be less than the Company flying block hours scheduled between the two countries in the same month of the twelve-month period prior to the month in which the Company's ownership level first exceeds 25%. As you can see Carl we have a block hour floor and not a percentage of flying. That is a huge difference. The union has also put out several communications explaining this. What really troubles me is that I discussed this at length with an MEC admin guy last month, and he was clear about the fact that we had a percentage of the block hours as a protection. When I looked it up afterwards, I read into the language something that wasn't there because of that conversation. It could also be that he meant some other bit of language other than 1.E.3, but who knows. It just shows me how impossibly complex our Section 1 has become when our own admins don't understand it as well as they thought. At this level of complexity (and we're about to add to that complexity), this can only work to the benefit of management. Regardless, I was wrong and again apologize. We don't have a block hour percentage protection, just a block hour protection. If they grow a JV partner, we have no right to share that growth. If they shrink a JV partner, we are protected from being forced to share that shrinkage. Unless there's another document somewhere that reverses the entire interpretation. Carl |
According to the presentation we plan to increase non Japan Asia flying by 10-15 %, but did not state where to or from.
|
Originally Posted by firstmob
(Post 1781029)
Did anyone catch the talk about used A321's?
|
Originally Posted by firstmob
(Post 1781042)
According to the presentation we plan to increase non Japan Asia flying by 10-15 %, but did not state where to or from.
Also, I don't think they said they might dump 88's. They talked about the fact they can be parked at a moment's notice if needed. They seemed to be emphasizing the flexibility. Also, as someone else mentioned, RA negotiates via webcast. He recently talked up used WB. After the recent order, he's saying used WB are "painful". He's pointing to used A321's, the (new?) B737-900/800. So count on new B737-MAX. |
Originally Posted by Herkflyr
(Post 1780864)
Ah, but it took between 9/11 and late 2004 to take any pay cuts. In fact, after the tragedy of 9/11, and billion$ in losses, we still took pay raises in 2002, 2003, and 2004. Um about 1,300 of us didn't Yes, we eventually gave them all back--and much more--but that actually was an example of "monetizing" possible PS into actual pay rates. My guess is that the guys who at some point in the late 90s were banging the PS drum were very quiet from 2002-04.
I don't know that anyone is in a hurry to monetize anything--certainly not me! I just know that Wall St hates such huge PS amounts. So what? Wall Street is often far too short-term-obsessed, and I am glad that our company really doesn't care--so far. That said, we need to know that the subject will be brought up at some point. It would have to take some huge "monetizing" for me to vote for any TA that would reduce the PS. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:46 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands