What did the company "conceptual" opener focus on?

 

The MEC Chairman put out a video called on time, on target and he stated it several times.

 

2nd time. I should have said the individual surveys varied. There is no way that all the surveys said don't change PS. Favored keeping PS for sure. Only change it for a steep penalty for sure. What is the problem here? I don't know that anyone is discussing it except on the forum. OFG

 

I think this is the most rational argument about this. Everyone can calculate how much a change to profit sharing is, put it in my paycheck and that's fine with me. I still like having no upper limit on profit sharing because that provides protection when things are good and we are mid contract.

 

im with these two, give me my money now dont bank on mgt not screwing it up

and for the people who say pay rates are variable too, i disagree, a bad decision can make your ps a zero without any help from the outside. it takes a bk judge to vary a pay rate and the bk rules arent as management friendly as the past

 

I see what you're saying. I'm against touching it, at all, until and unless C2015 is current book. Then if they want to shift some in an equitable way to pay, from the bottom tier only, then they can show us that bifurcated proposal and we can vote on it. I may still say no. I will always say no to reducing or eliminating the top tier because that is potentially unlimited.

One thing about PS that isn't discussed much in the current light is the concessionary "at risk" vulnerability in a massive crisis environment. Maybe we've turned the corner and will never see another 2000-2006 era where the bottom droppes out of revenue and other events hit us hard and we go into BK. But if it ever does happen again, its a lot harder to reduce existing PS than it is to take a huge bite out of pay rates. So in that respect, PS is much less "at risk" than pay table rates in a truly concessionary environment. Hopefully we'll never have to find out.

So far, and despite somewhat justified conjecture/suspicion to the contrary, everything we're hearing from the company and DALPA seem to be in favor of keeping PS as is, at least for this round. We need to watch it, but there's way bigger threats to watch out for in C2015 than PS which looks to be fairly secure in the negotiating room from what we can see. Scope, training freezes, sick leave, block time and other work rule "productivity" increases are far more likely to sneak in this time around than a reduction in PS, which would at least be pretty easy to see.

 

Here's some logic.

Management has not screwed up the hedge for 2016. Delta will make $9 billion plus. Our new debt goal will be $3 billion or less. Essentially zero.

Without touching profit sharing at all, there is zero excuse for DALPA not attaining 20% plus 1/1/16 in light of our profits.

Reducing profit sharing results in self funding.

After we agree to C2015 if managment wants to discuss reducing profit sharing, I'm not opposed to that.

There is a push here to drive managment's goal of self funding like we did in C2012. FAIL.

 

deleted...

 

I'm afraid you're part of the small contingent Herk...and I wouldn't call your contingent a perjorative name as you have. My reps and Donatelli's video are clear that the pilots spoke in the survey that profit sharing was not to be touched.

Carl

 

c2012 was weaksause and we all know it

dont see any evidence that reducing profit sharing is on the agenda, only from you and carl. moving some lower end ps money to the payrates is wise if done clearly and separately from the contract improvements

give me my money now, i dont trust management to not screw up later