Details on Delta TA
01-12-2015, 07:26 AM
#3191
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Originally Posted by Sink r8
I'm not sure how you can claim the 95% number, but I agree that a lot of people consider their PS to be their money. As such, they'll cast a very dim view of having it stolen, even under a "monetizing" euphemism.
I think most guys have been paying attention to company statements regarding returns to the various stakeholders, not just shareholders, and have noticed our ability to pay down debt, pre-fund pensions, invest in the product, AND demonstrate great largesse to investors. Most guys have also noticed the trend in Valentine's Day checks, and they're going to know immediately if they're getting the shaft instead of a sincere and financially meaningful expression of love and affection.
I think most guys have been paying attention to company statements regarding returns to the various stakeholders, not just shareholders, and have noticed our ability to pay down debt, pre-fund pensions, invest in the product, AND demonstrate great largesse to investors. Most guys have also noticed the trend in Valentine's Day checks, and they're going to know immediately if they're getting the shaft instead of a sincere and financially meaningful expression of love and affection.
We have to wonder why the insiders are quietly setting us up for a reduction at PUB events and in the crew room. IMO RA is leading them and they are.selling us out. The new Strategic Planning Chairman and his vice are.leading the charge.
Will our MEC cave again?
01-12-2015, 08:14 AM
#3192
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
I'd enjoy reading your stuff more if you weren't continuously working to discredit someone, or working some political angle, by starting with a valid premise, but weaving it into a subjective, baseless argument.
Yes, I think most guys want to keep their PS. The DPA survey probably suffers from self-selection bias, and the ALPA survey is probably more nuanced than you say, but it's plausible that the overwhelming majority would NOT want their PS touched.
That being said, even though you can't tie our feelings about the PS, to your accusations and speculations, it's still entirely possible that some guys on the MEC do think it's a good idea to monetize the PS. I think it's a bad idea. That was a part of C2012 that people were most upset about, and that was during a time when the PS hadn't quite shown its' full potential. We've earned that PS, and the investment is paying off. Bad, bad idea to tinker with it.
Yes, I think most guys want to keep their PS. The DPA survey probably suffers from self-selection bias, and the ALPA survey is probably more nuanced than you say, but it's plausible that the overwhelming majority would NOT want their PS touched.
That being said, even though you can't tie our feelings about the PS, to your accusations and speculations, it's still entirely possible that some guys on the MEC do think it's a good idea to monetize the PS. I think it's a bad idea. That was a part of C2012 that people were most upset about, and that was during a time when the PS hadn't quite shown its' full potential. We've earned that PS, and the investment is paying off. Bad, bad idea to tinker with it.
01-12-2015, 08:35 AM
#3193
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,912
Originally Posted by Sink r8
I'd enjoy reading your stuff more if you weren't continuously working to discredit someone, or working some political angle, by starting with a valid premise, but weaving it into a subjective, baseless argument.
Yes, I think most guys want to keep their PS. The DPA survey probably suffers from self-selection bias, and the ALPA survey is probably more nuanced than you say, but it's plausible that the overwhelming majority would NOT want their PS touched.
That being said, even though you can't tie our feelings about the PS, to your accusations and speculations, it's still entirely possible that some guys on the MEC do think it's a good idea to monetize the PS. I think it's a bad idea. That was a part of C2012 that people were most upset about, and that was during a time when the PS hadn't quite shown its' full potential. We've earned that PS, and the investment is paying off. Bad, bad idea to tinker with it.
Yes, I think most guys want to keep their PS. The DPA survey probably suffers from self-selection bias, and the ALPA survey is probably more nuanced than you say, but it's plausible that the overwhelming majority would NOT want their PS touched.
That being said, even though you can't tie our feelings about the PS, to your accusations and speculations, it's still entirely possible that some guys on the MEC do think it's a good idea to monetize the PS. I think it's a bad idea. That was a part of C2012 that people were most upset about, and that was during a time when the PS hadn't quite shown its' full potential. We've earned that PS, and the investment is paying off. Bad, bad idea to tinker with it.
First off - we shouldn't touch PS. But if for some reason we must ( I can't think of a reason) monetizing PS must be seperated from section 6 otherwise we are "buying" our raise.
My 2 cents - Scoop
01-12-2015, 08:44 AM
#3194
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,524
Originally Posted by Scoop
First off - we shouldn't touch PS. But if for some reason we must ( I can't think of a reason) monetizing PS must be seperated from section 6 otherwise we are "buying" our raise.
My 2 cents - Scoop
My 2 cents - Scoop
I'm sure if this is attempted, it will be sold as either neutral or a net gain. But if that is the case, where is the harm in separating it out?
If the company moves to change it, they will only be doing so because it makes financial sense for them. IOW it will save them money. IOW it will not be a neutral ledger move. We will give up more than we get.
Theoretically if there is no profits and we could somehow "lock it in" the payrates that would be great. However if we go from 5-10B in projected annual profits to annual losses, just how long does anyone think we will keep our new raise plus monetized profit sharing in the first place?
Leave it alone until after C15 and make it a seperate issue.
01-12-2015, 08:48 AM
#3195
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,344
Originally Posted by gloopy
I agree. I think there is tremendous value to the company in inking the waters with a million issues at the same time, and this is one of the biggest ways for them to move the ball around the cups while we think we are watching.
I'm sure if this is attempted, it will be sold as either neutral or a net gain. But if that is the case, where is the harm in separating it out?
If the company moves to change it, they will only be doing so because it makes financial sense for them. IOW it will save them money. IOW it will not be a neutral ledger move. We will give up more than we get.
Theoretically if there is no profits and we could somehow "lock it in" the payrates that would be great. However if we go from 5-10B in projected annual profits to annual losses, just how long does anyone think we will keep our new raise plus monetized profit sharing in the first place?
Leave it alone until after C15 and make it a seperate issue.
I'm sure if this is attempted, it will be sold as either neutral or a net gain. But if that is the case, where is the harm in separating it out?
If the company moves to change it, they will only be doing so because it makes financial sense for them. IOW it will save them money. IOW it will not be a neutral ledger move. We will give up more than we get.
Theoretically if there is no profits and we could somehow "lock it in" the payrates that would be great. However if we go from 5-10B in projected annual profits to annual losses, just how long does anyone think we will keep our new raise plus monetized profit sharing in the first place?
Leave it alone until after C15 and make it a seperate issue.
01-12-2015, 08:54 AM
#3196
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,524
Originally Posted by sailingfun
The interesting thing is the company has not even hinted at changing profit sharing. This forum is the source for the rumors. If anything the company has stated they believe in profit sharing.
I don't think they will try to completely eliminate it. I do think they will try and reduce it. And I think its likely we will see some form of that in the first (and only?) C2015 TA.
Obviously we're getting some percentage of pay table increase. So whatever we get, we'll be told PS is just being transferred. Just like 4/8/3/3. The only question is how much and from what tiers.
A huge danger would be to change the upper tier. That could be done in such a way that it could technically be called a zero reduction in profit sharing. IOW, put the cutoff at or just above 2014 levels, or even projected 2015 levels. Then in later years if it goes billions above that level they can transfer that money to shareholders instead.
I would love to be wrong about this. But I'm absolutely certain there will be changes to PS in the company's proposal as well as in our TA.
01-12-2015, 09:19 AM
#3197
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Originally Posted by Sink r8
I'd enjoy reading your stuff more if you weren't continuously working to discredit someone, or working some political angle, by starting with a valid premise, but weaving it into a subjective, baseless argument.
Yes, I think most guys want to keep their PS. The DPA survey probably suffers from self-selection bias, and the ALPA survey is probably more nuanced than you say, but it's plausible that the overwhelming majority would NOT want their PS touched.
That being said, even though you can't tie our feelings about the PS, to your accusations and speculations, it's still entirely possible that some guys on the MEC do think it's a good idea to monetize the PS. I think it's a bad idea. That was a part of C2012 that people were most upset about, and that was during a time when the PS hadn't quite shown its' full potential. We've earned that PS, and the investment is paying off. Bad, bad idea to tinker with it.
Yes, I think most guys want to keep their PS. The DPA survey probably suffers from self-selection bias, and the ALPA survey is probably more nuanced than you say, but it's plausible that the overwhelming majority would NOT want their PS touched.
That being said, even though you can't tie our feelings about the PS, to your accusations and speculations, it's still entirely possible that some guys on the MEC do think it's a good idea to monetize the PS. I think it's a bad idea. That was a part of C2012 that people were most upset about, and that was during a time when the PS hadn't quite shown its' full potential. We've earned that PS, and the investment is paying off. Bad, bad idea to tinker with it.
It is very frustrating to me that some of our leaders think they know better and want to disregard the ALPA survey. How do we fight that behavior?
Why would the DPA results be different? And if the DPA survey was fixed, why weren't the date of signing raises 50%? The DC 25%.
I firmly believe the ALPA survey is within 3% of the DPA surveys 98% wanting to keep or increase profit sharing.
You nailed it, reducing profit sharing no.matter how it is spun will result in self funding our hourly rate increases.
01-12-2015, 09:57 AM
#3198
Straight QOL, homie
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Posts: 4,202
Based on what I've heard from my reps, along with a "trial balloon" floated by a very high-up DALPA guy, they are saying 10% per year for 3 years is "out of the question." I say again. "Our" "union" is telling us 10% a year is "impossible."
I'm trying to wrap my head around this. How in the world would be induced to sell back profit sharing (conservatively 20% next year, and even more in 2016) to fund that crap?
What's going on here?
I'm trying to wrap my head around this. How in the world would be induced to sell back profit sharing (conservatively 20% next year, and even more in 2016) to fund that crap?
What's going on here?
01-12-2015, 10:24 AM
#3199
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,912
Originally Posted by sailingfun
The interesting thing is the company has not even hinted at changing profit sharing. This forum is the source for the rumors. If anything the company has stated they believe in profit sharing.
Well thats OK. If it never comes up - no harm. If it comes up and we are not ready for it - stand by.
FWIW I heard of 4/8.5/3/3 on the forum before well before hearing anything official.
I hope you are right.
Scoop
01-12-2015, 11:26 AM
#3200
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by sailingfun
The interesting thing is the company has not even hinted at changing profit sharing. This forum is the source for the rumors. If anything the company has stated they believe in profit sharing.
You'd do your credibility a huge favor if you would stop pretending to be something you're not.
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
