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 sailingfun (Post 1884716)

UAL and AMR lost about 8 billion in equity today on Parkers comments. I suspect he would like a chance to rephrase what he said. Delta fared better. We are down about 2 billion. Might be a good time to buy!

I think stock buybacks in general are dumb and contribute little to nothing to the value of a company long term. Although reasonable dividends can be smart provided employee and product investment come first. But to any extent we do stock buybacks, it should be all saved up and pooled for hissy fit analcyst crackberry day trader temper tantrums like today. At least we'd get more for our money that way, and it would provide a nice backstop for the real longer term investor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1884368)

What some fail to realize is that in conventional negotiations you meet once or twice a month and the company rarely sends decision makers to the meetings. We are meeting 4 to 5 days a week with the principles in the room. We have probably already done the equivalent of two years negotiations at the normal pace.

First of all, this is NOT an equivalent of two years of normal paced negotiations. What we've done so far is about 4 or 5 months worth at a "normal" pace. It's about double the pace that's "normal." Which brings me to point two, which is: Why would that be the case? Our management team has a fiduciary responsibility to minimize costs. What fiduciary duty would our management team be pursuing by accelerating the pace of negotiations? Are they hurrying to increase pilot costs to the corporation? Or are they hurrying to decrease pilot costs to the corporation?

This is not even arguable it's so clear. Management is hurrying to decrease pilot costs to Delta. To do anything else would put them in fiduciary breach. What management is hurrying to prevent is almost immaterial. It's only important to understand that they're hurrying to REDUCE costs. That is leverage for us to pursue OUR goals with the TIMIMG being secondary.

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by pilotstats (Post 1884404)

Silly people and fear of seemingly small numbers.... 9% upon ratification and 9% on Jan.1 is an 18.81% increase on the amendable date; about 1/2 point ahead of C2K 2004 rates! Hooray, it only took 12 years. Profit sharing would not change for 2015 (like last time) so that adds another 19-20% on top of 2015 earnings, don't you just love the frosting on that cake!

Since we all love to speculate here, let's go with the PS plan changes on the bottom to move 5% over to the rates, (9/9/4/4 is actually 9/4/4/4). Therefore in 2016 you are being paid more than 2004 rates, and even though you lopped 5% off of the PS calculation, the projected payout (using the 2015 estimate), would still add roughly 14-16% onto that amount come February.Looks like quite close to C2K plus inflation.(and way ahead of the previous peak for PMNW pilots). Yes I think we would see C2K+14.5% at least for the 2016 year.

Given a status quo in the rest of the contract it's a no brainer. The interesting parts will be in other than Section 3, will we gain or lose? We've seen giveaways and gains in all different areas. Quantifying that will be the part that needs the most scrutiny.

Here we go again. What is it with you hacks working at the behest of this MEC administration? Do you not see how transparent you are? Do you think we're not smart enough to see this is yet another "argument" in your long-standing and completely predicted tactic of demeaning profit sharing in the eyes of pilots?

As predicted folks, the MEC administration is desperately looking for the believable excuse as to why they gave away some profit sharing. That excuse is proving difficult, so there's nothing left for them but to demean profit sharing so we're willing to give it up voluntarily. Expect lots more of this.

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonRicco (Post 1884469)

Exactly. Unless you are sure there is something super time critical that gives us some finite leverage (I am not aware of anything) why would you delay?

See my post above. The pilots delaying isn't leversge in and of itself. It's leverage by understanding that management wanting to hurry can ONLY mean they are doing so to reduce pilot costs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonRicco (Post 1884469)

They key is that you don't want to TA something just because it is fast.

Exactly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonRicco (Post 1884469)

Again, tell me exactly what the reason is for dragging out negotiations and what leverage would be gained?

Again, see above.

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by badflaps (Post 1884489)

Is it me or are there a lot of new posters encouraging a fast sign....

It's not just you. Pretty hard to miss. Ford & Harrison doesn't take anything for granted.

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by pilotstats (Post 1884505)

Given a choice, which would you prefer in your personal saving account:

A)A promise to pay you $1,200 more than a year from now if I don't have other expenses..
OR
B)$100 every month all year long.

Translation: Profit sharing is bad and must be given up you idiot pilots.

All of us at Ford & Harrison thank you in advance for your continued support.

Carl

Quote:

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1884903)

I meant buy on a personal level not a stock buyback.

Anyone know if the special MEC meeting ended today or was extended into tomorrow? The answer could be telling!

Quote:

Originally Posted by pilotstats (Post 1884526)

Do you agree or disagree with the math in the aforementioned scenario, yes or no. "quite matter of fact about C2015" does not answer thay question (not sure what is does actually). Is that supposed to be a "..maneuvered around that.." of some kind?

Direct answer, the math is essentially correct. Now here's my question to you: Do you agree or disagree with your math being completely undone by concessions in other areas like profit sharing, scope, scheduling and work rules?

Carl