It does make me think that if we see lower ps then it is because we asked for it and got it.

Disregard. Wasn't supposed to mention that.

Splash,

You are correct but you are also omitting some some important discussion topics.

1. We are only negotiating a 3-4 year deal. If current conditions hold this period should be wildly profitable. Obviously the further out you go the greater that this can change. Lets play the averages and let our profit sharing provide us with $$$$. If we don't think we can sustain these kind of profits margins lets at least get one more section 6 out of it.

2. When people correctly point out that PS is more at risk in my mind they are referring to a black swan event permanently reducing profits. In these type of events all compensation is at risk. If it is a lesser event - profits should quickly return.

So basically converting PS to pay rates will only help in an event bad enough to permanently affect profits, but not bad enough to trigger a force majeure BK scenario.

3. The industry and company have changed drastically in the last decade. DAL is has been making ever increasing profits in a down economy. Consolidation has reshaped the industry and helped to minimize irrational below cost ticket pricing. DAL is running a much leaner and more efficient operation that can consistently produce large profits.


Finally a question for all in favor of monetizing profit sharing.

List some examples of the kind of events that will permanently affect our profits but that would not also risk the industry leading pay-rates we are demanding?

Scoop

I'm focused on the words because they're DALPA's words. I didn't define profit sharing as "at risk" compensation, DALPA did. Words mean things.

Your point (and DALPA's) point is the one that's disingenuous. In our history, hourly rates have NEVER gone up without negotiation, but they've sure gone down without them. But profit sharing can go down, OR UP without any negotiations or court interventions. Our recent history should show you that hourly rates are every bit as risk based as profit sharing. As I said earlier, every single word in our PWA is "at risk." DALPA's use of the term "at risk" is entirely specious.

No they don't Splash and you know better than that. They only require agreement by our reps and management, or by a court.

I don't disagree, but that shouldn't bother you. What should bother you is the fact that management didn't come up with this specious term of "at risk" compensation, DALPA did. Our own bargaining agent. The guys that are supposed to be on our side. Why DALPA would do this should cause everyone to critically think.

Carl

Sadly, that doesn't mean PS won't be touched. RA also said "flat out" in multiple venues that he wasn't here to facilitate a merger with NWA. I don't think RA purposely lied about it, but he obviously changed his mind.

I'm not as much upset as I am troubled by the fact that DALPA is the entity calling profit sharing into question. Not management...DALPA.

Reps are completely meaningless here. They've been entirely marginalized. Keeping them or recalling them won't change the mindset that exists amongst the MEC administrators.

Now you're on to something. But understand you'll have to vote NO on a POS TA while DALPA screams that you'll never get a better offer and your career may be forever damaged by a NO vote.

Carl

And you should know that within the context of risk AND REWARD to profit sharing and pay rates, one of them has the potential to provide a huge payout without anyone's consent. A huge payout via pay rates would require negotiations.

Carl

Great question. I'd also like an example of what could happen to make an agreed upon pay rate produce a huge unpredicted payout.

Carl

Good response. The area that makes the discussion germane is your use of the qualifier, "should". We should, but might not. Whether or not this would be a good time to convert some of our profit sharing formula to pay rates is something I expect our reps to discuss.I want to keep profit sharing. I like the connection it gives us to the operation. I'm also not opposed to converting a portion of it into "above and beyond" pay rates.

I don't think it takes a black swan. I think a bad acquisition or poorly executed merger could hurt profitability, but not trigger pay cuts. Ask United pilots how the last 6 years have gone. That's 2 negotiating cycles for us.

The threat from the state-owned airlines has grown, too. Will our government continue to block cabotage and foreign ownership? A change to those protections could trigger a situation where profitability drops, but not dramatically enough to see us going back to bankruptcy court.

Dropping foreign ownership restrictions could result in a few state-owned airlines going after the Big 3 in the US. Being gobbled-up by a foreign entity that can hide profits because we're now a private company owned by an emirate or kingdom could be "troublesome".

I'm not clairvoyant, nor am I a keen accountant. I went to bed on Sept 10, 2001 oblivious to a threat I learned a lot about over the following years. The first few years saw my pay actually go up - even though my airline was wildly unprofitable. I'm not smart enough to figure out all the possible scenarios that could lead to something that kills profits, but allows us to maintain pay rates.

Should I ignore my "pilot sense" and not worry about risk I can't predict?

New hire reindeer games...Ran out of FDP and got an all expenses paid overnight in ATL with DH home the next day. Scheduler approved deviate DH but flight was full and couldn't book jumpseat so listed as non rev. One of the FA seats was open 15 min prior but agent couldn't figure out how to book me. She finally gave me boarding pass and I boarded and put away my luggage and talked with Capt and lead FA. At departure time I was asked to deplane since they still couldn't figure out how to close the flight. I am now at Hilton--at least it is warmer than Chicago crew rest (barely). Any thoughts?

Have a beer and get a good nights sleep. That's what I'd do. You gave it a go.