Details on Delta TA
05-29-2015, 04:03 PM
#5091
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Sorry, but he's taking it one step too far. I don't have the same love of divisive politics, or politics for that matter, and I don't even know whether the guys he's trying to smear was involved in the PS. But if he wasn't here, he's dead wrong in lecturing us on wether there was, or wasn't a perceived value.
The PS was a liability, before it was an asset, and there is no question the reps were skewered over it. I don't know how to determine whether PD has no credibility on this topic because the truth doesn't fit his views, or because he just wasn't here, without asking if he was here. What's your diplomatic non-divisive suggestion for answering an offensive or ignorant argument?
The PS was a liability, before it was an asset, and there is no question the reps were skewered over it. I don't know how to determine whether PD has no credibility on this topic because the truth doesn't fit his views, or because he just wasn't here, without asking if he was here. What's your diplomatic non-divisive suggestion for answering an offensive or ignorant argument?
Last edited by Sink r8; 05-29-2015 at 04:15 PM.
05-29-2015, 04:23 PM
#5092
Straight QOL, homie
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Posts: 4,202
Originally Posted by Sink r8
The PS was a liability, before it was an asset, and there is no question the reps were skewered over it. I don't know how to determine whether PD has no credibility on this topic because the truth doesn't fit his views, or because he just wasn't here, without asking if he was here.
"The PS was a liabliity, before it was an asset." That's the point. No one expected profit sharing to be this massive.
Why are the DALPA admin usual suspects trying to justify a way to get rid of it?
05-29-2015, 04:42 PM
#5093
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: 717a
Posts: 638
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
"The PS was a liabliity, before it was an asset." That's the point. No one expected profit sharing to be this massive.
To management it was an asset that became a liability when they had to cut the check.
05-29-2015, 05:06 PM
#5094
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
By the same logic, those of us born after WWII have no standing to criticize Hitler, since we weren't "there." GMAFB. I'm beginning to reasses my evalutation of you as an even-handed commentator.
"The PS was a liabliity, before it was an asset." That's the point. No one expected profit sharing to be this massive.
Why are the DALPA admin usual suspects trying to justify a way to get rid of it?
"The PS was a liabliity, before it was an asset." That's the point. No one expected profit sharing to be this massive.
Why are the DALPA admin usual suspects trying to justify a way to get rid of it?
In the spirit of fairness, I'll help a little bit, by suggesting a lot of guys tweaked and improved the PS. Some of the guys you have a strange hatred (is that word OK?) for, some which are more agreeable to the reps whose praise you sing.
Anyway, you're standing on your own crank on this topic.
As far as your other question, I'm just speculating here, but I would imagine it's because they see a way to get get some value for some modifications. I think that idea has gained traction. It's been a while since IAV84DAL crashed and burned here, so I never got to give a grudging partial apology, but the idea does roll around and around in your brain, when you do the arithmetic of No QOL concessions + payraise increase we want + PS = something we can gain. Wouldn't play well online, but maybe there is some convergence of pilot guidance and MEC/NC strategy? I'm not saying I know this to be true, since neither one of us does, I'm just saying that a lot of these ridiculous gyrations we're going through with APC politics now don't change the fact that most everyone wants to see a product they can vote on, and probably don't expect to pay the cost of political infighting. I bet you want to see a deal, and I want to see a deal, and Jerry wants to see a deal, and everyone here wants the NC to succeed, deep down inside. If nothing else, it'll be something new to argue about.
So I suspect these hints about PS, and the obvious "at-risk" language change prime us for it. But first, we must have 100-150 pages talking about hypthetical heroes in a council or another who would never ever touch PS in a world that doesn't exist, vs the pricks that are standing on top of PS's corpse with a dagger, and a pillow with ether in it, or some nonsense.
In the end, I want the process followed, the best deal we can, no deal if it doesn't meet our requirements, and as little self-inflicted damage as possible.
There. I just told you the truth. How's that for even-handed?
05-29-2015, 05:14 PM
#5095
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,033
Give up profit sharing???
More for those interested...
*Note...
the increase in margin YOY (year over year)
the early settlement of future fuel hedges 300m (taking the the charge now increases cost and reduces profit in the quarter and has the opposite effect in future quarters)
June quarter projections
the early pension contributions 900m
I'm glad my 2016 profit sharing accrual for payout is outpacing my 2015 profit sharing by 37%. 99m set aside in 2014 Q1 versus 136m set aside in 2015 Q1. I cant wait to see the June quarter results!
http://ir.delta.com/files/doc_financ...001_k0ii9v.pdf
*Note...
the increase in margin YOY (year over year)
the early settlement of future fuel hedges 300m (taking the the charge now increases cost and reduces profit in the quarter and has the opposite effect in future quarters)
June quarter projections
the early pension contributions 900m
I'm glad my 2016 profit sharing accrual for payout is outpacing my 2015 profit sharing by 37%. 99m set aside in 2014 Q1 versus 136m set aside in 2015 Q1. I cant wait to see the June quarter results!
http://ir.delta.com/files/doc_financ...001_k0ii9v.pdf
05-29-2015, 05:35 PM
#5097
Doesn't Get Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,598
Originally Posted by notEnuf
More for those interested...
*Note...
the increase in margin YOY (year over year)
the early settlement of future fuel hedges 300m (taking the the charge now increases cost and reduces profit in the quarter and has the opposite effect in future quarters)
June quarter projections
the early pension contributions 900m
I'm glad my 2016 profit sharing accrual for payout is outpacing my 2015 profit sharing by 37%. 99m set aside in 2014 Q1 versus 136m set aside in 2015 Q1. I cant wait to see the June quarter results!
http://ir.delta.com/files/doc_financ...001_k0ii9v.pdf
*Note...
the increase in margin YOY (year over year)
the early settlement of future fuel hedges 300m (taking the the charge now increases cost and reduces profit in the quarter and has the opposite effect in future quarters)
June quarter projections
the early pension contributions 900m
I'm glad my 2016 profit sharing accrual for payout is outpacing my 2015 profit sharing by 37%. 99m set aside in 2014 Q1 versus 136m set aside in 2015 Q1. I cant wait to see the June quarter results!
http://ir.delta.com/files/doc_financ...001_k0ii9v.pdf
05-29-2015, 05:37 PM
#5098
Doesn't Get Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,598
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
Sink,
Just to clarify: You and DALPA expected, when PS was negotiated, the checks to exceed 20% of your pay?
Thanks
Just to clarify: You and DALPA expected, when PS was negotiated, the checks to exceed 20% of your pay?
Thanks
05-29-2015, 05:49 PM
#5099
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by shiznit
Wrong, flat out wrong. They don't even admit as much in the op-ed. they use words like "for whatever reason" and "seems". No mention of any "corruption of governance" or like statements. There is a clear mechanism to remedy corruption, and there is a ethical and legal responsibility to take appropriate action to address such activity. Sending an op-ed that throws your NC and MEC under the bus doesn't fit that bill.
Not at all, no one is happy with concessions. Undermining the negotiators doesn't help undo concessions.
It's not the ONLY thing, and save the pilot anger for when it can be leveraged.. The AA pilots were disgruntled all the time and the media, stock market, their own management just ignored them because it was part of the everyday existence. The leverage that the Delta pilots get to exert is that Richard has said "labor risk is off the table", remember? The ability to promise labor risk is a tool for the MEC and NC to use, but they don't get multiple shots once unleashed. It's use should be strategically placed on the table when needed, not thrown around by some local council missive and flushed down the drain.
The timing of it definitely couldn't be worse, right before direct negotiations enter the compensation discussions. If the opposition (management) already knows you are against whatever the NC brings forward, why bother offering anything? When in a business deal, there has to be an expectation that a deal can be reached. Walking in and saying, "No, I won't agree to or listen to anything you say" is not rational or reasonable.
Not naive, just willing to let the guys who helped pave the way for C2K do their thing now that it's their turn.
To use a "Carlism":
You have no way of knowing that. None. You're just a line pilot like the rest of us.
Oddly enough I agree and it applies to you too!
You are so bad at translation Carl. You don't have that right with me.
I think we have an absolutely spectacularly successful PS plan. (hatched and negotiated by the oft reviled Moak, O'Malley, Pinho, etc.) All it shows is that "winding the clock" isn't as economically advantageous as it may seem on the surface.
fyp
Not at all, no one is happy with concessions. Undermining the negotiators doesn't help undo concessions.
It's not the ONLY thing, and save the pilot anger for when it can be leveraged.. The AA pilots were disgruntled all the time and the media, stock market, their own management just ignored them because it was part of the everyday existence. The leverage that the Delta pilots get to exert is that Richard has said "labor risk is off the table", remember? The ability to promise labor risk is a tool for the MEC and NC to use, but they don't get multiple shots once unleashed. It's use should be strategically placed on the table when needed, not thrown around by some local council missive and flushed down the drain.
The timing of it definitely couldn't be worse, right before direct negotiations enter the compensation discussions. If the opposition (management) already knows you are against whatever the NC brings forward, why bother offering anything? When in a business deal, there has to be an expectation that a deal can be reached. Walking in and saying, "No, I won't agree to or listen to anything you say" is not rational or reasonable.
Not naive, just willing to let the guys who helped pave the way for C2K do their thing now that it's their turn.
To use a "Carlism":
You have no way of knowing that. None. You're just a line pilot like the rest of us.
Oddly enough I agree and it applies to you too!
You are so bad at translation Carl. You don't have that right with me.
I think we have an absolutely spectacularly successful PS plan. (hatched and negotiated by the oft reviled Moak, O'Malley, Pinho, etc.) All it shows is that "winding the clock" isn't as economically advantageous as it may seem on the surface.
fyp
For those who haven't been reps or an MEC administrator and you're wondering how some of the MEC administrators behave, Shiznit's post here is a classic example. If you DARE to cross the administration, they don't debate you with facts. They pursue name calling, threats and accuse you of hurting every pilot. Absolutely anything to shut you up.
This appears to be a new era however. Harwood's F-Bombs, threats and name calling aren't stopping our reps from keeping us accurately informed. The MEC administration (and wannabes like shiznit) are absolutely enraged at this because they don't have message control.
It'll be interesting to see if new insults and accusations can be created to shut these insolent reps up.
Carl
05-29-2015, 06:02 PM
#5100
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Sink r8
I hope you don't mind if I admit openly to not seeking your endorsement for even-handedness. But OK, I'm going to dispassionately and politely tell you that you're barking up the wrong tree. We understood the company would be very profitable, because of the magnitude of the concessions. That wasn't even a question.
In the spirit of fairness, I'll help a little bit, by suggesting a lot of guys tweaked and improved the PS. Some of the guys you have a strange hatred (is that word OK?) for, some which are more agreeable to the reps whose praise you sing.
Anyway, you're standing on your own crank on this topic.
As far as your other question, I'm just speculating here, but I would imagine it's because they see a way to get get some value for some modifications. I think that idea has gained traction. It's been a while since IAV84DAL crashed and burned here, so I never got to give a grudging partial apology, but the idea does roll around and around in your brain, when you do the arithmetic of No QOL concessions + payraise increase we want + PS = something we can gain. Wouldn't play well online, but maybe there is some convergence of pilot guidance and MEC/NC strategy? I'm not saying I know this to be true, since neither one of us does, I'm just saying that a lot of these ridiculous gyrations we're going through with APC politics now don't change the fact that most everyone wants to see a product they can vote on, and probably don't expect to pay the cost of political infighting. I bet you want to see a deal, and I want to see a deal, and Jerry wants to see a deal, and everyone here wants the NC to succeed, deep down inside. If nothing else, it'll be something new to argue about.
So I suspect these hints about PS, and the obvious "at-risk" language change prime us for it. But first, we must have 100-150 pages talking about hypthetical heroes in a council or another who would never ever touch PS in a world that doesn't exist, vs the pricks that are standing on top of PS's corpse with a dagger, and a pillow with ether in it, or some nonsense.
In the end, I want the process followed, the best deal we can, no deal if it doesn't meet our requirements, and as little self-inflicted damage as possible.
There. I just told you the truth. How's that for even-handed?
In the spirit of fairness, I'll help a little bit, by suggesting a lot of guys tweaked and improved the PS. Some of the guys you have a strange hatred (is that word OK?) for, some which are more agreeable to the reps whose praise you sing.
Anyway, you're standing on your own crank on this topic.
As far as your other question, I'm just speculating here, but I would imagine it's because they see a way to get get some value for some modifications. I think that idea has gained traction. It's been a while since IAV84DAL crashed and burned here, so I never got to give a grudging partial apology, but the idea does roll around and around in your brain, when you do the arithmetic of No QOL concessions + payraise increase we want + PS = something we can gain. Wouldn't play well online, but maybe there is some convergence of pilot guidance and MEC/NC strategy? I'm not saying I know this to be true, since neither one of us does, I'm just saying that a lot of these ridiculous gyrations we're going through with APC politics now don't change the fact that most everyone wants to see a product they can vote on, and probably don't expect to pay the cost of political infighting. I bet you want to see a deal, and I want to see a deal, and Jerry wants to see a deal, and everyone here wants the NC to succeed, deep down inside. If nothing else, it'll be something new to argue about.
So I suspect these hints about PS, and the obvious "at-risk" language change prime us for it. But first, we must have 100-150 pages talking about hypthetical heroes in a council or another who would never ever touch PS in a world that doesn't exist, vs the pricks that are standing on top of PS's corpse with a dagger, and a pillow with ether in it, or some nonsense.
In the end, I want the process followed, the best deal we can, no deal if it doesn't meet our requirements, and as little self-inflicted damage as possible.
There. I just told you the truth. How's that for even-handed?
Best think on this some.
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
