Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1812821)

http://cdn.smosh.com/sites/default/f...ancefail-5.gif

http://86failavenue.com/images/fail-...melon-face.gif

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1812542)

I have never seen a cruise ship at Anegada. I suppose it was inevitable but still very sad. They will have to anchor a long way out as the entrance to the anchorage will only carry about 9 feet at high tide.

Originally Posted by treehugger (Post 1812766)

+1

I missed the infraction worthy posts too. Sounds like a case of thin skin by those casting stones. Handing out infractions and hiding behind "the computer banned him, not me" is a pretty weak minded position. That said:

Profit sharing IS a concession. It gives management degrees of freedom to dork things up with fewer consequences (read, dollars) allocated to the pilot payroll line. Refinery, anyone? Sometimes the bet pays off and the pilots get some scratch. Sometimes the bet does not pay off, and the pilots realize they would have rather had management-proof monetization of said profit sharing. W-2 is king. Give it to me with as few variables as possible. Mitigate management risk.

Profit sharing should be per capita. A guy shouldn't have to move to base and give his life away to bring home the bank from effective corporate management. If I fly my line according to the contract, I contributed just as much as a guy who has no non-flying life or, through no fault of his own, is senior and never met a green slip he didn't like. One could argue a guy flying at straight pay contributes more to corporate profitability than a green slipper. One could argue that--and they'd be right 100% of the time.

Nurse your wounded feelings Mr. Infraction Hander-outer. The Joker has this one right. In fact, one would be wise to ponder a few of his other points. If you don't like the delivery, be high-minded and consider the message. That's what thinkers do...

The foregoing is my opinion (too). Hopefully this post won't be banned for non-compliance to Clamp-think.

Originally Posted by Scoop (Post 1812902)

TreeHugger,

How we are compensated is important, but it pales in comparison to "how much" we are compensated.

Profit Sharing is not inherently good or bad. I would much rather keep PS because it is increasing rapidly, and will most likely keep increasing, at least for a few years.

And a $5000 annuity for PS is a joke. All the 60+ year old Pilots must be salivating at the chance to spread less than one years PS payout over their remaining 5 years at Delta. :eek:

As far as PS being a concession - it certainly was "meant" to be a concession but it does not appear to working out that way.

PS per capita? It is your opinion and we are all entitled to one, but really?

Just as PS is not inherently good or bad, monetizing PS is not inherently good or bad either. But a couple of points need to be made here:

First off any discussion of monetizing PS has to be independent of section 6. Crossing the streams would be "bad." :D

Second - PS is going up! Lets see what happens in a few years.

Finally, how do we know what PS is really worth? Do you really think DALPA has a better handle on this than management? If management has better data, and they do, we are at a serious disadvantage trying to put a value on it.

Pilots have always been behind the times when negotiating. The industry has changed. Lets look forward and not negotiate like its the 1980's, 1990's, or even 2000.

Scoop

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1812918)

We seemed to be ahead of the times and management when we negotiated the profit shaing formula!

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1812923)

Then traded some of it for pay rates...:confused:

Originally Posted by Timbo (Post 1812929)

Don't worry, you'll never see those two 3% raises, we'll be back in negotiations in less than a year to buy Alaska and the company will have to pay us big time for that! :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Jughead135 (Post 1812614)

You may already know this, but I learned it the hard way a couple of weeks ago: a significant difference internationally is that you cannot "convert" your non-rev listing to a JS listing ("flow forward"). Once you're within 75 minutes of push, you're stuck with whatever listing you have (or don't have). For reasons that elude me, the system cannot take a non-rev listing and put you in the JS; and we're not allowed to make two listings (i.e., one non-rev & another JS "just in case"). You can still "flow back" from the JS if there are open seats, but if you're trying to sit with your wife, that may not work out as well....