vs.

Those things can't both be right, can they?

We're up to our eyeballs in "leaks", and so far the thing they have in common is that they support one group of people or another. They don't really help the group. In the case where there was a mild uprising (CDO's), there was no warning. Then we've seen cases where rumors failed to materialize entirely. Which makes them selective, and not particularly accurate.

I think the cliffnotes are pretty obvious: the MEC doesn't play all that well together. Guys are tripping over themselves to accuse each other of various misdeeds, and they've been selectively passing bits of information, in a mixture of true and false, to like-minded friends, in order to shape opinion. That's what's going on.

That's a given. Whatever they get, matter how good or bad, management is going to sell to the shareholders as a victory, and the union will do the same.

As I was saying above, trying to shape opinion, and telling other pilots how to vote. Nothing wrong with that, except it crosses a line when you're telling specific councils how you want them to vote. Got NYC, DTW and MSP all dialed in perfectly, do you?

That, I have no idea. I think you pose an excellent question. I think you've been a little too optimistic in your PS calculations and assumptions, as discussed in this thread. Nonetheless, it seems that time is on our side.

Of course, the flip-side of that means that we should be able to sell time. An early delivery should come with a hefty fee.

Can we agree that any deal will never see a TA without the 4 ATL reps on board?

Numbers do not lie. Politics and poetry and promises, these are lies. Numbers are as close as we get to the handwriting of God.

I'm a numbers guy and started a rough draft of a 9-6-4-4 vs C2000. Here's what I have:

2018 Compensation position vs C2000

+25% raise
+16% Profit sharing(based on 2014 bonus)
-6% inflation(2% per year compounded)
-3% Profit Sharing Reduction

• +32%
• 47%(C2000+inflation)-32%

Result: 15% short in Buying Power in 2018

*Info needed
Profit sharing % estimate for $6 billion and $10 billion profit
True percentage cost of profit sharing reduction. Numbers thrown out so far have been 2.6/2.7% and 5%.

Sounds logical to me.

So you're numbers guy, but you're running numbers on a rumored trial balloon that can't be substantiated? Why would those numbers be any better than any other numbers you pull out of the air?

The numbers for profit sharing are easy to figure out. Take 63 million and divide it by the total profit sharing pool and you will be within spitting distance of the percentage payout you will receive based on current wages and total number of employees at Delta. If we get a bigger raise then the employee group as a whole our portion of the profit sharing would go up. In the rumor posted we would see a reduction in the profit sharing pool of 200 million dollars. That would result in just under a 3.1% reduction as a percentage of pay.
Last year the pool of profit sharing money was 1.1 billion which produced a 16.8% profit sharing amount. That would be 900 million under the new formula or about 13.7%.
The percentage of profit sharing lost would be reduced if profits increase and increased if profits go down with the worst impact if profits were exactly 4.5 billion PTIX. In 2014 the PTIX was around 6.5 billion.

If we can't hit 25% 1/1/16 then touching PS is a self funding failure.

Delta will make $6 billion this year and American will make $10 billion.

This rumor is chump change. Fail.

Whenever we're discussing profits and profit sharing, maybe it's worth writing it out. As in, "Delta will make $6,000,000,000.00 this year."

I wouldn't be too worried about this rumor except for the fact that C12k started as a nearly identical rumor (and has been trumpeted as a success by all involved, so why wouldn't they go for a repeat?). 9/6/4/4 on its own isn't bad, but funded by significant PS givebacks is extremely underwhelming. I'd likely be a no vote in that case as status quo has little downside, with the potential for future raises after further negotiation. I'm not against "monetizing" profit-sharing by any means, but it needs to be at a decent "exchange rate," and on top of rate increases commensurate with a wildly profitable company.

The only thing that could turn me into a yes vote would be significant scope recapture, but I suspect the very opposite will hold true...rolling the ongoing violation into the TA with some language that suddenly finds them in compliance (for now). That, frankly, worries me a hell of a lot more than 9/6/4/4. The trend vector with our joint ventures has been going the wrong way for a long time, and the company has grown increasingly brazen at disregarding the protections in the contract.

Emailing my rep. A rumor is just a rumor, but a little preventative medicine never hurt.