|
|
Here is my 2c on sick leave. The company has put themselves in a staffing issue and again they want the pilots to bail them out and not call in sick. Maybe hiring a year earlier would of helped this out? I don't want to work next to a person who is sick but has the attitude I am taking one for the team. As I get sick because of them. Pilots are not in charge of staffing so why should we be concerned on who is going to cover the sick call. Most OTC drugs that would help us get through a day we are not allowed to take and fly so toughing it out like you can if you sit in an office is not the issue. What is the company doing to help the situation? Maybe providing a list of approved OTC medicines that you can take and fly with would help. Or maybe that list is so short that they would rather see us take the OTC drugs and just fly. The union if approached on this issue should take a stand and not move an inch.
|
Quit being such a drama queen. You need to compartmentalize this. DC sucks, but like it or not money talks. Donate to as many far left/right PACs as you choose, for whatever causes you are passionate about. Guns, gay marriage, immigration, abortion, etc. This is not about getting someone elected. If every pilot in the country joined the PAC it still wouldn't influence 99.99999% of who gets elected. We are small fry's. What it does do, is gets the ear of who is there and hopefully convinces them to vote the way that's best for OUR profession. The PAC is buying their votes only on pro-pilot legislation. Our guys are not up there using our money to influence votes on the other issues.
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1822113)
Let's take it to the extreme. If the legislator was a Muslim extremist but did everything he could for pilots, would the PAC contribute to him?
|
Originally Posted by Will
(Post 1822163)
Here is my 2c on sick leave. The company has put themselves in a staffing issue and again they want the pilots to bail them out and not call in sick. Maybe hiring a year earlier would of helped this out? I don't want to work next to a person who is sick but has the attitude I am taking one for the team. As I get sick because of them. Pilots are not in charge of staffing so why should we be concerned on who is going to cover the sick call. Most OTC drugs that would help us get through a day we are not allowed to take and fly so toughing it out like you can if you sit in an office is not the issue. What is the company doing to help the situation? Maybe providing a list of approved OTC medicines that you can take and fly with would help. Or maybe that list is so short that they would rather see us take the OTC drugs and just fly. The union if approached on this issue should take a stand and not move an inch.
|
Originally Posted by OldFlyGuy
(Post 1822106)
I support the PAC. I re-thought my views (which mirrored GG's) when EAL went down. I looked at all the political shenanigans and Frank L's affiliations and donations and realized we have to have a political voice. We can't and won't win every battle, but with no voice we stand zero chance especially vs deep pocket "Foreign Invaders." IMO our political system is grossly distorted to benefit the massively wealthy (individuals and nations) which doesn't include us. As organized labor the right does view us as communist. They don't generally like us. We have to protect ourselves. The Brothers K aren't spending all that money to promote anything except their personal interests. The ME carriers aren't trying to do the world a service with aviation any more than they did with $147 oil. I have only a few years left: career nearly over. The young folks especially need to choose the lesser of two weevils and defend themselves thru the PAC and emails, calls, and letters to their governmental reps. JMO OFG
Any pilot who has more than a few years left here would be foolish to not contribute. To do otherwise is short sighted and ultimately self destructive. We're all disgusted with the way Washington operates, but despite that, our voice needs to be heard, too. |
Originally Posted by NERD
(Post 1822169)
Quit being such a drama queen. You need to compartmentalize this. DC sucks, but like it or not money talks. Donate to as many far left/right PACs as you choose, for whatever causes you are passionate about. Guns, gay marriage, immigration, abortion, etc. This is not about getting someone elected. If every pilot in the country joined the PAC it still wouldn't influence 99.99999% of who gets elected. We are small fry's. What it does do, is gets the ear of who is there and hopefully convinces them to vote the way that's best for OUR profession. The PAC is buying their votes only on pro-pilot legislation. Our guys are not up there using our money to influence votes on the other issues.
|
Originally Posted by IAV84DAL
(Post 1822127)
They do indeed. Is your point that its good because they have it?
A couple of points 1. Its in the corporate by laws not their contract. They get it whether they like it or not. Current management holds it over their heads. To paraphrase one of my several "A" friends there: We demand a pay raise, management counters by implying profit sharing makes up for less in pay rates. 2. Its capped to IRS limits. I'll never make enough for this to matter but for many of them 9.8% (this year) puts a number of their A's into the cap and they get cutoff. We're all about to get a very big check. The question we should be asking ourselves is why is it in managements interest to pay us a Valentines Day bonus and not a bi-monthly check?? I realize this is an extreme scenario, but clearly you believe we should have profit sharing taken into account directly through compensation which would eliminate downturn risk. It's certainly a valid point, but it is extremely important to quantify that amount so we can say definitely that we conceded profit sharing (based on $XX billion profit) for a XX% compensation increase. |
Originally Posted by IAV84DAL
(Post 1822127)
They do indeed. Is your point that its good because they have it?
A couple of points 1. Its in the corporate by laws not their contract. They get it whether they like it or not. Current management holds it over their heads. To paraphrase one of my several "A" friends there: We demand a pay raise, management counters by implying profit sharing makes up for less in pay rates. 2. Its capped to IRS limits. I'll never make enough for this to matter but for many of them 9.8% (this year) puts a number of their A's into the cap and they get cutoff. We're all about to get a very big check. The question we should be asking ourselves is why is it in managements interest to pay us a Valentines Day bonus and not a bi-monthly check?? My opinion only, but I would like a contract negotiated in the current company economic environment that doesn't require me to give up something I've already paid for in order to get pay rates that are commensurate with what the company is currently making and repaying us for a portion of what we have given. If after section 6 negotiations the company wants to come back to us and pay us a certain percentage above the then current contract then let the union vote on it and if it passes then we get more on top. I don't like it hidden as "If we didn't give it up then our pay raises would have been smaller". |
Originally Posted by IAV84DAL
(Post 1822127)
We're all about to get a very big check. The question we should be asking ourselves is why is it in managements interest to pay us a Valentines Day bonus and not a bi-monthly check??
Its astounding to me that in this environment of enormous profits, management and DALPA have been able to steer the terms of debate toward a mindset where we are talking about what concessions we might have to give. We don't owe this corporation one nickel. They owe us. We bailed them out. Let's not forget, a significant portion of the current "profits" are what used to be our pension. We've already funded our own contract. The "very big check" is pennies on the dollar. |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 1822230)
The question we should be asking ourselves is why we are even asking the question.
Its astounding to me that in this environment of enormous profits, management and DALPA have been able to steer the terms of debate toward a mindset where we are talking about what concessions we might have to give. We don't owe this corporation one nickel. They owe us. We bailed them out. Let's not forget, a significant portion of the current "profits" are what used to be our pension. We've already funded our own contract. The "very big check" is pennies on the dollar. Furthermore, anyone else feel as though dragging out this contract negotiation for a few years probably wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. The company is forced to payout 20% on the dollar for profits above $2 billion annually until a new TA is ratified. The whole time value of money suddenly works in our favor for once, so why rush I say? No need to sacrifice quality for expediency. |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 1822230)
The question we should be asking ourselves is why we are even asking the question.
Its astounding to me that in this environment of enormous profits, management and DALPA have been able to steer the terms of debate toward a mindset where we are talking about what concessions we might have to give. We don't owe this corporation one nickel. They owe us. We bailed them out. Let's not forget, a significant portion of the current "profits" are what used to be our pension. We've already funded our own contract. The "very big check" is pennies on the dollar. Also, if management were to give us say, a 25% raise, that would be an increase to the COST side of the equation. However, a 25% Profit Sharing payout is NOT on the cost side of the equation, PS comes from PROFIT, which is determined after subtracting COSTS. Richard has to answer (stupid) questions at those investor conferences we all listen to (or should) and one of the questions they always ask is, "What do you project your operational cost increases will be, going forward?" Well, Profit Sharing is NOT part of a "cost increase" at all. It is a distribution of profits, after costs are subtracted from income. It's just like paying out a dividend to the investors, only in this case WE were the investors, when we sacrificed 42% of our PAY (which it would take an 18% pay rate increase just to recover today) and our DB funding going forward. Remember, the DL South DB plan was over $4 Billion UNDERFUNDED when they flushed it down the toilet. The first $4Billlion of any Delta Profit can be directly attributed to the company NOT funding our DB PLAN! Then add in the over $1Billion per year just for the south guy's pay cuts! FOR 10 YEARS! That's another $10 BILLION they still OWE US! :rolleyes: |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:11 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands