Airline Pilot Central Forums

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)

EdGrimley 04-04-2015 03:37 PM


Originally Posted by Karnak (Post 1856036)
Jump ball question:

EdGrimley posted this comment: "If you believe what Ed says in the video about the performance of this pilot group vs our peers, there should be little argument whether this pilot group deserves an industry leading contract in pay rates (not including profit sharing) and work rules."

Here's the question: Do we believe what the executives tell us?

Not picking on EdGrimley here. Just looking for some opinions.


That's a good question. To hear Ed (the guy who loses sleep over paying too much in wages) speak so optimistically to the pilot group about financials is a good sign. I think management knows there's just too much money coming in to hide so might as well talk about it a little. Lot's of money rolling in even with some bad hedging. 2016 and beyond, Delta is going to knock it out of the park!

Karnak 04-04-2015 03:39 PM


Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1856027)
Management has faced critism in financial circles over the refinery and is working hard to justify it. Listen again however to his statement on paying off the refinery. He talks only of initial investment. He does not talk about the cost to upgrade the refinery or the losses it sustained over several years. They are a ways from paying off those items. With the recent plunge in oil they may get there but it has not happened yet. The initial investment was only 150 million.

My understanding is that the "impact on the profitability" (not the same as "profit and loss") of the refinery is not easy to read in the 10K reports.

The operation at the refinery the airline owns lost $50m, but the airline's savings in fuel is only expressed as an average cost per gallon. Delta was something like 8-cents better than peers for the year. Part of that was a better-than-peers tax payout for JetA because you don't pay tax on fuel you give to yourself. That benefit was not expressed as a separate item in the reports.

Even when the price of oil plunges, the amount of tax on a gallon of JetA does not. The tax benefit of giving it to ourselves is real, and not required to be reported.

Sink r8 04-04-2015 03:39 PM


Originally Posted by EdGrimley (Post 1856020)
Please ignore those here who are preaching the sky will soon be falling. To the contrary, profits will continue to go up with even higher payouts. Don't touch profit sharing!

I like much of what you wrote in that post, but you have to admit that the part quoted is pretty funny. Ignore them, but believe me that profits are going up and up!

I think the undeniable fact is that the future value of the PS is speculative. Personally, I've thought Delta was a good investment for several years. I don't base that at all on what we employees are being told, but based on what the owners are being told via earning calls and guidance, and even that, I usually discount. Overall, I want upside protection, but I'm also reducing my exposure to the stock. For the same reasons, it might be OK to have a little less exposure to the company's performance via PS, if it implies a trade in addition to rate increases, not a self-funded "raise".

Thing is, I have absolutely no idea how you could prove the result was one or the other.

BenderRodriguez 04-04-2015 03:40 PM


Originally Posted by Karnak (Post 1856052)
My understanding is that the "impact on the profitability" (not the same as "profit and loss") of the refinery is not easy to read in the 10K reports.

The operation at the refinery the airline owns lost $50m, but the airline's savings in fuel is only expressed as an average cost per gallon. Delta was something like 8-cents better than peers for the year. Part of that was a better-than-peers tax payout for JetA because you don't pay tax on fuel you give to yourself. That benefit was not expressed as a separate item in the reports.

Even when the price of oil plunges, the amount of tax on a gallon of JetA does not. The tax benefit of giving it to ourselves is real, and not required to be reported.

ding ding ding we have a winner.

Carl Spackler 04-04-2015 03:41 PM


Originally Posted by Karnak (Post 1856036)
Jump ball question:

EdGrimley posted this comment: "If you believe what Ed says in the video about the performance of this pilot group vs our peers, there should be little argument whether this pilot group deserves an industry leading contract in pay rates (not including profit sharing) and work rules."

Here's the question: Do we believe what the executives tell us?

Not picking on EdGrimley here. Just looking for some opinions.

Don't know if WE do, but YOU certainly do. You were one of the strongest trumpeters of management's claims that the 717's weren't coming anyway, and the 50 seaters will just get re-engined if we voted NO, and we needed to say yes to C2012 because the window of opportunity was so short, and...

Carl

Sink r8 04-04-2015 03:43 PM


Originally Posted by Karnak (Post 1856036)
Here's the question: Do we believe what the executives tell us?

If by "we" you mean the pilot group and the union, the answer is: usually. To the point of frequently quoting them.

Sink r8 04-04-2015 03:47 PM

Simulposting. The new word of the day.

Scoop 04-04-2015 03:51 PM


Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 1856053)
I like much of what you wrote in that post, but you have to admit that the part quoted is pretty funny. Ignore them, but believe me that profits are going up and up!

I think the undeniable fact is that the future value of the PS is speculative. Personally, I've thought Delta was a good investment for several years. I don't base that at all on what we employees are being told, but based on what the owners are being told via earning calls and guidance, and even that, I usually discount. Overall, I want upside protection, but I'm also reducing my exposure to the stock. For the same reasons, it might be OK to have a little less exposure to the company's performance via PS, if it implies a trade in addition to rate increases, not a self-funded "raise".

Thing is, I have absolutely no idea how you could prove the result was one or the other.


Sink,


You are exactly correct - if we reduce PS during section 6 we have no idea how much we are "paying" for our raise.

You would have to monetize PS separate from section 6.

For instance this past year we received about 16% from PS. So if we got a 25 raise contingent upon eliminating PS it would actually be a 9% raise.

Would 9% in this negotiating environment even be considered a single in the ever present baseball analogy? Maybe a fielders choice with a RBI for good measure. :D

Granted - it would be "less" at risk than PS but not totally without risk which should be totally obvious to all since we are still not even up to C-2000 rates.

Scoop

Karnak 04-04-2015 03:54 PM


Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1856045)
For those that don't have the DALPA contract comparison anymore, page 27 shows profit sharing/bonus comparisons. The YES in the fourth column indicates that profit sharing is pensionable at Delta. Apparently Karnak believes that means Delta pilots lead the industry in compensation.

Nope. It means we lead in Profit Sharing. No other airline has a formula for payout as good as ours, and "pensionable" means we get an extra 15% on TOP on the Profit Sharing payout. Nobody has that added 15%, even if their formulas were as good as ours.


Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1856045)
We are at 5:15 while Southwest is at 5:39. They beat Delta by :24

Nice try! At 6.5 TFP for the day, it means a SWA pilot qualifies for the conditional maximum 5:39 ADG exactly never. SWA is working under an old contract, and the ADG conversion was not modified after FAR117.


Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1856045)
Crew augmentation is one portion of the Work Rules section. The clear industry leader in work rules based on the DALPA contract comparison is a tie between UPS and Southwest.

Got me! Crew Augmentation is indeed a "portion" of all the language in our contract that can be called Work Rules. It's an important portion, and one that has a significant impact on staffing and QOL for long haul pilots, but golly…it's on a "portion". it's also an area where we clearly lead the industry.

I understand how you'd want to diminish that. First World problems.

Karnak 04-04-2015 04:03 PM


Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1856056)
Don't know if WE do, but YOU certainly do. You were one of the strongest trumpeters of management's claims that the 717's weren't coming anyway, and the 50 seaters will just get re-engined if we voted NO, and we needed to say yes to C2012 because the window of opportunity was so short, and...

Nope. Not me. You're going to have to show me when/where I've ever said that. The 717's were not a factor in my vote. I did like the window of opportunity, but you're really straining your credibility by claiming I was "one of the stingiest trumpeters". That's Baghdad Bob stuff right there.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:43 PM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands