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 SharpestTool (Post 1858200)

OK, lets say that Spackle has won the issue on PS. PS is variable compensation, but only to the upside since there is no "at risk" element. LOL! Hang with me here... if PS was to go down due to a drop off in profitability... I know, I know, it never will, the pilots will be good with that. Certainly good enough that they would never chose to monetize at a higher rate. Therefore we elect to retain full current exposure to PS.

Further, RA will never account for future risk exposure to PS because it cannot be calculated. Even if it was possible, the NMB would tell him he is full of it and would slap him down. He will just have to the roll the dice and hope it all works out.

So, what is the most we will get from him in this situation, assuming all else remains the same and we've reduced the money making sections to annual pay rate increases.? I know, I know, RA does not have a maximum because it is not he who decides our max compensation, it is us (according to Spackler). Lets make it easy and assume a 3 year contract. I think it would be helpful if we further assume two scenarios: 1) a contract delivered at the amenable date, and 2) contract delivered at some point beyond the amenable date. In scenario 2, lets include a date along with the pay raises expected.

So this exercise is not about what we want, I want quite a bit (I know, I know, what we get is defined by what we want because it is us that determines the max.) So lets assume that we all want $10,000 per hour. This exercise is about what is doable, and specifically doable within a defined timeframe and within historical processes.

I'll start.

1) on time: 8, 3, 3

He will meet AA's rates plus 1% and then maintain that margin in the out years. His thinking (Spackler's as well) is that PS is variable but certainly not at risk (our risk), and our pay margin in reality will be 17% with PS. I know, I know, we just have to say stuff it and those rates will climb because he cannot cap them. He will think a 17% margin is fair and he'll guess that the NMB will agree. I know, I know, the NMB will refuse to count PS. It isn't the 17% margin that he thinks the NMB will sign off on, it is the 1% margin.

2) 11, 3, 3 delivered at amendable date plus 18 months. After watching PS decline slightly in 2015, the early look at 2016 PS shows a further decline. RA is comfortable raising the stakes a bit with a reduced PS liability. The margin is now 4%. The NMB has no heartburn with industry standard plus 4%. Delta pilots are eager to get the meter running again.

Ok, let the Poo fly! But, lets not forget to play. Don't forget your projections!

1/1/16 american is 15% ahead on the MD 88, A 330 and 787.

Your numbers are a joke. Even the always Yes voters would reject anything less than 16% 1/1/16.

We are not going to have rates lower than American 1/1/16. SWA and FedEx will exceed American and UAL opens next year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gzsg (Post 1858283)

Ok, there's the Poo. Where's your numbers?

Yes to pay bands? I think pay bands are taboo here aren't they?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sharpesttool (Post 1858293)

ok, there's the poo. Where's your numbers?

aa 787, a 330 1/1/16 $293.11

Quote:

Originally Posted by SharpestTool (Post 1858200)

OK, lets say that Spackle has won the issue on PS. PS is variable compensation, but only to the upside since there is no "at risk" element. LOL!

You are the only one saying that. I've never said it. Profit sharing is unknown and impossible to predict compensation. Since a Section 6 negotiation deals exclusively with future contractual items, it is impossible to cost out profit sharing in a Section 6...because we can't predict its future dollar value. If you can't cost it out, the NMB would never allow management to have it be the last stumbling block prior to an impasse. Therefore, all we have to do is say no to any management proposals to reduce profit sharing and the status quo would have to be maintained.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SharpestTool (Post 1858200)

Hang with me here... if PS was to go down due to a drop off in profitability... I know, I know, it never will, the pilots will be good with that.

Again, nobody is saying that but you. A false initial premise does not make your conclusions correct. Nobody but you has ever said profits will never go down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SharpestTool (Post 1858200)

Certainly good enough that they would never chose to monetize at a higher rate. Therefore we elect to retain full current exposure to PS.

That's also incorrect. Nobody but you is saying that. What many of us have said is that profit sharing reductions ("monetization") does not belong in Section 6 negotiations. IF we pilots are inclined to do so because a majority thinks we're at the top of corporate profitability, that's great but we must do so AFTER Section 6 is completed. If you include "monetization" in Section 6, you are self funding your contractual gains. That's the problem.

You'll never be able to get people to understand your point of view if you continue to mischaracterize what we think. You'll only succeed in bashing arguments that only you are making.

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by gzsg (Post 1858283)

How far are FedEx and SWA into their negotiations? How much headway have they made? And you are hanging your rhetoric talking points on their contracts? lulz

But, if you are correct then that is good because it is exactly what is supposed to happen in pattern bargaining. You act like it's a bad thing. I hope they DO exceed us, but I am not as optimistic as you are vis-a-vis FDX and LUV.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez (Post 1858321)

I think we are agreeing here. Pattern bargaining. We must exceed the AA hourly rates. 15% 1/1/16. Hopefully by a large margin. Helping UAL, SWA and FedEx.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenderRodriguez (Post 1858321)

TSquare, is that you? :eek:

First answer that comes to mind. What are your thoughts about longevity based pay? YES/NO :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by SharpestTool (Post 1858200)

Further, RA will never account for future risk exposure to PS because it cannot be calculated.

Again, only you are saying that. RA will account for profit sharing exposure by calculating it via his predictions on what corporate profits might be. Any executive team would do that. The issue is that those predictions won't fly with the NMB as being properly costed out. In fact, if management attempted to do that, it would open the door for DALPA to demand costing via predictions. Neither side wants to set that precedent in these or any other Section 6. The best course of action for management to take is to get pilots to voluntarily give up all or part of their profit sharing. Which is exactly why we're seeing this multi-pronged approach to demean profit sharing in the eyes of pilots.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SharpestTool (Post 1858200)

Even if it was possible, the NMB would tell him he is full of it and would slap him down. He will just have to the roll the dice and hope it all works out.

This melodrama doesn't add to clarity. The NMB would simply tell Delta management that a non-costed item can't be the only remaining item prior to impasse. If management persisted, the NMB would label them as bargaining in bad faith.

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by SharpestTool (Post 1858200)

So, what is the most we will get from him in this situation, assuming all else remains the same and we've reduced the money making sections to annual pay rate increases.? I know, I know, RA does not have a maximum because it is not he who decides our max compensation, it is us (according to Spackler). Lets make it easy and assume a 3 year contract. I think it would be helpful if we further assume two scenarios: 1) a contract delivered at the amenable date, and 2) contract delivered at some point beyond the amenable date. In scenario 2, lets include a date along with the pay raises expected.

What "situation" are you referring to ST? Your totally untrue and distorted arguments that only you are making?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SharpestTool (Post 1858200)

So this exercise is not about what we want, I want quite a bit (I know, I know, what we get is defined by what we want because it is us that determines the max.) So lets assume that we all want $10,000 per hour. This exercise is about what is doable, and specifically doable within a defined timeframe and within historical processes.

Section 6 is not an "exercise" ST. It's a tried and true process that allow for significant gains to be made by labor if the environment is right. And by the way, the environment has never been 'righter.'

Quote:

Originally Posted by SharpestTool (Post 1858200)

1) on time: 8, 3, 3

He will meet AA's rates plus 1% and then maintain that margin in the out years. His thinking (Spackler's as well) is that PS is variable but certainly not at risk (our risk), and our pay margin in reality will be 17% with PS. I know, I know, we just have to say stuff it and those rates will climb because he cannot cap them. He will think a 17% margin is fair and he'll guess that the NMB will agree. I know, I know, the NMB will refuse to count PS. It isn't the 17% margin that he thinks the NMB will sign off on, it is the 1% margin.

RA might well think that. It's up to our union to disagree and make the case for much more in this environment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SharpestTool (Post 1858200)

2) 11, 3, 3 delivered at amendable date plus 18 months. After watching PS decline slightly in 2015, the early look at 2016 PS shows a further decline. RA is comfortable raising the stakes a bit with a reduced PS liability. The margin is now 4%. The NMB has no heartburn with industry standard plus 4%. Delta pilots are eager to get the meter running again.

Your thesis ignores retroactive pay for being 18 months late.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SharpestTool (Post 1858200)

Ok, let the Poo fly! But, lets not forget to play.

This is the second time you've said this now. Is your only real purpose here to have excrement fights?

Carl