![]() |
|
Originally Posted by texavia
(Post 1904118)
By all means Bender - keep the Larry, Curly and Moe "leadership" you've got now.
|
Originally Posted by gzsg
(Post 1903915)
Are you saying a majority of Delta pilots wanted to reduced profit sharing in the DALPA contract survey?
You don't need a survey to make severe concessions in exchange for on 8% hourly increase and two 3%.cost of living increases. Maybe Mike Hanson will say we won't see the 3% and 3%. We can trust him. |
Originally Posted by SayAlt
(Post 1904251)
I'm sorry, you were saying?
We reduced profit sharing from 20% to 10% from $2.5 to $6Billion. That's a savings of $350 million. The non-contracts get a 5% match on their 401K, we get a 15% contribution. Rolled together that's just under 10%, or another $35 million. Total of $385 million in savings. Employer SSDI/OASDI and payroll taxes are a wash, as our wage rates completely replace our profit sharing payment. I suspect, but can't prove, that non-contract wage rate changes will do the same thing, just like they did in 2012. The biggest error is in timing. Wages are paid ahead of profit sharing accrual (those are at the end of quarter). The Barrons article used a profit sharing change up to $6.5 billion, which induced another $50 million+ of error. FWIW. |
Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez
(Post 1903858)
Now at least somebody is being honest about this. Look, I am not defending this thing, but this blanket BS about it not being followed is simply unprovable as the whole. It is merely a starting point, and I am sure they tried to get as much as they could. One of the former negotiators told me once that I would have been amazed to see how low the aggregate pay increase desires were in the previous surveys. Can I prove that? Nope. I know what he told me, and that's good enough for me, because I have known him a long time and he wouldn't lie to me about that. I didn't want PS touched on THIS contract, in section 6. It obviously doesn't reflect that desire. That doesn't mean there aren't 6000 guys that didn't put down they were willing to accept a trade to hard rates. I even get the logic of it, I just happen to believe that the business "DAL" is going to be doing well for some time to come, and that PS was going to be "safe" for at least this contract. So just because it doesn't reflect your desires or my desires doesn't mean it wasn't followed or that some hard decisions weren't made in the negotiations room. So all you guys that are so unhappy with this thing, vote no. That's fine. I am probably leaning that way, but I still need more information on some things.
|
Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez
(Post 1904272)
If Caplinger is my alternative choice, I would rather have the Stooges any day and twice on Sunday.
|
Okay Slow, I follow the math now. So it's not a "cost positive" deal for the company. On the other hand it's not costing them anything out of pocket either. Not real thrilled with taking a raise off the backs of the rest of the employees at Delta. You know that how it will be viewed by every other line employee.
Denny |
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 1904545)
Not real thrilled with taking a raise off the backs of the rest of the employees at Delta. You know that how it will be viewed by every other line employee.
|
Originally Posted by SayAlt
(Post 1904563)
I don't know if that is truly accurate or not, but I'm damn sure that's how mgmt will spin it!
They want this TA to pass right? How would turning other employees against the company help their objective? |
Originally Posted by DeadHead
(Post 1904624)
Why would management want to spin it that way?
They want this TA to pass right? How would turning other employees against the company help their objective? If we pass the TA, Mgt will say nothing, but as Denny points out based on analyst estimates our raise WILL come at the expense of fellow employees' profit sharing. |
July A scheds are out.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:40 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands