Details on Delta TA
#3171
That was the reason the administration gave for circumventing the negotiating process and ignoring the survey results and the "direction" from the reps. That's the reason they gave for signing a quick TA and then dropping it in the MEC's lap.
We were told we had to act fast or we would lose our one and only chance to get the 717s and reduce the number of RJs.
I don't think anyone believes now that the 717s weren't coming anyway and that RA wasn't going to park a bunch of the 50 seaters no matter what happened.
C'mon man. We got played. You can admit it. Anderson is smarter. He got us to give concessions for things he was going to do anyway.
They made the deal and then told the reps they had to pass it or the negotiators would lose all credibility with management....
The next offer would be less... The time value of money.... If we don't act now then Anderson and the NMB will put us on ice for years.... etc. etc.
#3172
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,831
Likes: 172
From: window seat
Of course in 2016 the profit might also be zero. Historically that's probably a far more likely number then 10 billion. I would also be willing to bet oil is in the 80 to 100 dollar range then. We are going to get killed by our hedges next year. american is projected to pay 30 cents a gallon less then us in 15. Combined with the billion dollars invested in the refinery between purchase, upgrades and quarterly losses fuel has not been a bright spot despite managements attempts to justify the purchase.
IOW it doesn't matter what crude is or what we gain or lose on hedges as that is separate from the refinery. Its purpose was to reduce the crack spread/refining costs, and nothing crude does effects that. To that end, isn't it still a success?
If lower oil prices result in lower fuel prices, won't that increase demand for fuel? Won't increased fuel demand result in more fuel needing to be refined? So flooding the market with cheap gas means you have to refine more gas. We now own and control that part of the bottleneck, and control it at a huge discount in our favor.
It was never designed to be an "oil hedge" or to "make a profit" it was done to lower risk and insure a reliable cheap supply. Hasn't it done that wonderfully?
#3173
I just read the forum stuff being posted by the AA guys about their deal. They seem to covet our "concessionary" contract.
They made the deal and then told the reps they had to pass it or the negotiators would lose all credibility with management....
The next offer would be less... The time value of money.... If we don't act now then Anderson and the NMB will put us on ice for years.... etc. etc.
The next offer would be less... The time value of money.... If we don't act now then Anderson and the NMB will put us on ice for years.... etc. etc.
#3174
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,877
Likes: 194
My opinion is that some sort of modified "Stockholm Syndrome" or "Kool-Aid" scenario occurs. The line between management and union fades creating a cohesive relationship thus mildly diluting contractual gains while fortifying management goals. (after all dont most union guys end up in management positions?)
TEN

TEN
#3175
TEN
PS. I dont call our contract SUPERIOR, you shouldn't either.
#3176
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,877
Likes: 194
Isn't the refinery "crude neutral" though?
IOW it doesn't matter what crude is or what we gain or lose on hedges as that is separate from the refinery. Its purpose was to reduce the crack spread/refining costs, and nothing crude does effects that. To that end, isn't it still a success?
If lower oil prices result in lower fuel prices, won't that increase demand for fuel? Won't increased fuel demand result in more fuel needing to be refined? So flooding the market with cheap gas means you have to refine more gas. We now own and control that part of the bottleneck, and control it at a huge discount in our favor.
It was never designed to be an "oil hedge" or to "make a profit" it was done to lower risk and insure a reliable cheap supply. Hasn't it done that wonderfully?
IOW it doesn't matter what crude is or what we gain or lose on hedges as that is separate from the refinery. Its purpose was to reduce the crack spread/refining costs, and nothing crude does effects that. To that end, isn't it still a success?
If lower oil prices result in lower fuel prices, won't that increase demand for fuel? Won't increased fuel demand result in more fuel needing to be refined? So flooding the market with cheap gas means you have to refine more gas. We now own and control that part of the bottleneck, and control it at a huge discount in our favor.
It was never designed to be an "oil hedge" or to "make a profit" it was done to lower risk and insure a reliable cheap supply. Hasn't it done that wonderfully?
That does not even get into potential long term environmental obligations.
#3177
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,877
Likes: 194
The results have been superior compared to other airlines. Read the other airline threads. Our contract seems to be the Holy Grail for most.
#3178
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
From: B-52 IP / Delta Poolie
The refinery has lost money almost every quarter since we have owned it. It does no good to save 7 cents a gallon on jet fuel and lose 15 cents a gallon on the other products. There is a reason not a single other airline has followed our example. Between the purchase cost, upgrade costs and ongoing losses were down about a billion dollars.
That does not even get into potential long term environmental obligations.
That does not even get into potential long term environmental obligations.
improvement year-over-year."
- Pulled straight from Delta's latest earnings report.
#3179
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,877
Likes: 194
As I stated they have lost money almost every quarter. I think there have been 2 or 3 quarters where a profit was made.
#3180
The refinery has lost money almost every quarter since we have owned it. It does no good to save 7 cents a gallon on jet fuel and lose 15 cents a gallon on the other products. There is a reason not a single other airline has followed our example. Between the purchase cost, upgrade costs and ongoing losses were down about a billion dollars.
That does not even get into potential long term environmental obligations.
That does not even get into potential long term environmental obligations.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post



