Airline Pilot Central Forums - Details on Delta TA

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)

- - Details on Delta TA (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/88532-details-delta-ta.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez (Post 1854673)

But out of curiosity, since PS is counted as regular income how would you account for it?

You account for profit sharing as income, but that's not the question. The question is: How do you cost out profit sharing in a Section 6 negotiations? The answer is that you cannot cost out profit sharing because the amount of any future corporate profit is unknowable.

Any attempt by management at tying profit sharing to compensation would not pass NMB scrutiny due to the impossibility of costing it. Funding compensation increases by agreeing to decreases in profit sharing percentages could only happen if our union advocates for it. Thus the renaming of profit sharing as "at risk compensation" by our union and repeated here on APC. Denigrating profit sharing is clearly a key DALPA priority.

Profit sharing isn't tied to other contractual compensation. It can only be tied if our own Union pushes for it.

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez (Post 1854703)

I still see us out in front though on the back of the napkin math.

Delta pilots do not lead the industry in any section of our contract. Not one. You can't be "out in front" if you don't lead anywhere...regardless of what napkin you write on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez (Post 1854703)

We get PS, they don't. Our hourly rates can stand to come up of course, but with PS we are better compensated. Is that not true?

Again, tying hourly rates to profit sharing. DALPA pushing for this will not change the survey results.

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by DALMD88FO (Post 1854731)

Ok I get it now. You want to add PS to our rates for costing purposes, but not their B funding when it is pointed out to you that the indeed get DC funding. How about we just compare pay rates to pay rates and balance that with the economic health of each company.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez (Post 1854735)

Why don't you throttle back a little and unload the guns? If you just want to throw monkey **** at each other, go over to the chit chat forum. That place is great for that kind of idiocy.

I'm seeing a pattern here with you. DALMD88FO's post wasn't throwing excrement, you just couldn't answer him. It's clear you were trying to deflect with your intemperate response.

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez (Post 1854735)

Why don't you throttle back a little and unload the guns? If you just want to throw monkey **** at each other, go over to the chit chat forum. That place is great for that kind of idiocy. If you want to discuss this like an adult, I am all ears.

Edit: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on your last post. Let's keep the two things separate. Pay: Our rates versus their rates. Theirs are higher. How does profit sharing factor in? Retirement: I have no clue what their percentages of DB and B fund are. How does that compare to our 15% 401k contribution.

Tell you the truth, I have no idea what a chitchat forum is. How do you get that I'm throwing monkey poo at you. As for the adult comment..you're just too funny. The only opinion that counts appears to be your own. My opinion is that we leave the PS alone and it doesn't need to be added to the top of a nifty little chart showing our payrate + profit sharing on top. You can't count on PS so you can't quantify it. I'm done with the subject.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gzsg (Post 1855012)

MD has said it over and over. "We hear you and you don't want to reduce or trade profit sharing".

The survey has spoken.

Maybe 2018.

So why all the angst about it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DALMD88FO (Post 1855026)

Actually, I agree with that, as I have said many times already.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SharpestTool (Post 1854966)

Denny,

No it wasn't compensation for past sacrifices. It was the best we could do for future compensation based on a very weak hand we were dealt post-bankruptcy. We would've opted for fixed pay increases if we would have had the negotiating leverage.

I certainly don't view it as compensation for past sacrifices but, as you said, it is tied to past sacrifices because we wouldn't have it without them.

I understand you value the insurance as a "bonus". Nothing wrong with that. What that insurance is worth is the question. The value changes with the business cycle. Are you willing to pay the premium when risk changes? That is the question.

Insurance? I do not look at it as insurance. An executive gets a bonus (extra compensation in the form of money or stock options) when s/he performs well. This can be measured a number of ways one of which is company profitability. This is our bonus. I want pay rates that reflect what I feel I'm worth. If a profit sharing check does not appear for the year, I will not be disappointed.

Profit sharing is a tool in which its value changes in the business cycle. We should look to monetize when its value is high and likely to be lower in the future. We can initiate it when its value is low and likely to increase in the future. It isn't good or bad. I'm saying I think it is a good time to capture value and reduce risk.

Just based on the profit sharing, what kind of increase in hourly rates are you talking about? Frankly, I don't think the company wants to get rid of profit sharing. It's a GREAT motivator for the troops (pilots included).

I disagree. I would prefer to wait. I don't think we could ever get the value in straight pay rates that the profit sharing is/will be worth. Hasn't RA touted that we are "new" company set to weather the ups and downs of the industry? He's made me a believer (:D)!

Denny

Quote: