Kinda crazy that we will make more in PS this year than the company put into our 401K. 16% vs 15%

Timbo,
The point is understanding Profit Sharing. I was not an advocate for MORE JV's just how what we now have affects what we have now. I do not want to infuse name calling,finger pointing, or monday morning quarterbacking.

That being said, the JV with Virgin Atlantic is a reality. Should it not be looked at with the regard of how it will potentially affect FUTURE PROFIT SHARING?

How should we fully value profit sharing if DALPA is going to possibly modify the dollars WE collect? Do we try for an analytical path to understanding or emotional?

I guess this forum is a waste of time to have open productive discussions on our collective compensation.

Sorry I wasted everyones time.

MC

Is that loss estimate a total loss relative to fuel or just a line item loss relative to the hedging?

Even if we "lose" money on hedging, we still benefit from the drop in price, we just wouldn't save/gain as much in that case as if we didn't hedge.

Not really...pensionable money is higher than the money subject to profit sharing...I.e you don't get ps on last years ps payments, but you do get DC contributions on it. For me it worked out to be a little more DC than PS (if 16.4% is the correct number).

I understand your point; the Virgin JV is going to make money for Delta Air Lines, (they said $200M) goody goody.

But good for who?

Should we ask all the displaced 747 pilots how much -more money- they will be making on the A330? :rolleyes:

At some point you have to admit Delta is outsourcing some of our international, wide body jobs. Who is that good for? The corporation will make more money, and you'll stay on a 737 the rest of your career. Is that good for you?

Let's hypothetically flip it around to demonstrate my point further. What if today at the investor's conference, Delta had said, "Well, that Virgin JV thing isn't really working out, we are going to shut Virgin down (since we own 49% of it) pulling capacity out of the North Atlantic, saving us a ton of money and driving up yields operating those flights on our own equipment. And we are going to buy 16 new 747's. Our pilots will fly them of course.


Every pilot (except the guys already on the 747) now takes a giant step forward, to a higher paying category, which in itself will yield higher profit sharing, unlike what is going to happen over the next two years as our 16 747's get parked and Virgin flies more of our international.

Oh, you do realize Delta is still out of compliance with our JV contractually agreed to numbers, right? :rolleyes:

MC-
I don't quite understand why Timbo's post offended you.
Your point is valid. We all understand. The corporation makes a profit by entering into the joint ventures.

I think Timbo's point is just as valid however. The joint ventures reduce Delta pilots' widebody jobs.

You are correct. The "loss" is on our hedging activities.
Overall, we will still have lower fuel costs. We don't hedge 100% of our fuel.

We just could have saved an extra $2 to $3 billion if we didn't "hedge" at all.

And that is why I wonder in the aggregate if we had never ever hedged any time if we would be just as well off... without having to waste a lot of time and effort to run a hedging department.

Hey CE, thanks for the link to the investor's call, that was interesting.

Is it recorded, so I can listen to it again? Richard and Ed were talking so fast I missed a few things...something about opening a mx facility in Shanghai...

Our mechanics must be thrilled, think of how much bigger their profit sharing checks will be! :rolleyes:

Fixed it for you...