Originally Posted by TheManager (Post 1896445)

So, PD was right when he said: "Mantooth was paid FPL (I.e., our dues money) to organize and attend the ALPA golf tournament. I say again. We paid him to golf."

Lest we think he's a neutral observer...He obviously has a vested interest in keeping the gravy train rolling smoothly.

Originally Posted by boog123 (Post 1896424)

This was forwarded to me, doyd…

Generic Napkin Math, based on 2014 PS %, percentages if incorrect would still be comparable.

"Typical MD-88 Captain"

Rumored:

2015
75 hours @ $206 Jan thru July = $108,150
75 Hours @ $223 Aug - Dec = $83,430 (8% DOS)
Total Salary = $191,580
Est. Profit Sharing @ 16.5% = $31,610
Total Compensation = $223,190

2016
Salary @ 236 ( 6% -1/1/16) = $212,400
Est. Profit sharing = $23,347 (33% reduction or 5.75% decrease)
Total = $235,764

2 Year Total compensation with rumored raises= $458,954

Status Quo

2015
Salary @ $206 = $185,400
Est. Profit Sharing = $30,591
Total = $215,991
2016
Salary @ $212.18 = $190,962
Est. Profit Sharing = $31,508
Total = $222,470

2 Year Total compensation without TA = $438, 461

Rumored = 458, 954
Staus Quo = 438,661
Difference = $20,492 over 2 years or Approx 2.25% raise per year…….

Originally Posted by tzskipper (Post 1896448)

10 years ago (give or take), management couldn't give profit sharing away. Airlines were losing money at a staggering rate.

Now airlines are profitable, pilot groups are clamoring to hang on to profit sharing, even though when "things turn south" (they always seem to do, if you believe history), the profit sharing payout is the only thing assured to take a hit. That is straight up, dollars gone. Seems to be a lot of trust in management these days.

Maybe a rhetorical question, but why?

Skipper

Originally Posted by D Mantooth (Post 1896471)

I don't get it. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I did not design any website. I did not organize any golf tournament. I don't know where or what a gravy train is, but I'm pretty sure I'm not on one!

In short, I'm not the droid you are looking for.

If I cared more about the accuser, I might be a bit more resentful of the accusation!

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1896495)

If profits dry up that by definition means a huge multibillion dolalr swing into the red and beyond. If that happens, do you really think we will hang on to the higher rates we traded for PS? They will come for a "haircut" and we will likely give it to them. Except this time, they will never give us the same PS percentages/tiers. Ever.

We sell this now, we will lose out in the long run. Not to mention the other concessions. Its even harder to get work rules back than it is pay rates.

Originally Posted by D Mantooth (Post 1896505)

I'm not advocating either position, but what if fuel rises and Delta is just "mildly" successful? Maybe only makes a few hundred million dollars. Nowhere near at the point where concessions would be needed, but at the point where PS will have dried up.

Could one argue that then we'll have wished we traded profit sharing for pay rates?

If we protect ourselves by not putting a ceiling on the upper end of profit sharing, wouldn't we also be protecting ourselves if we were to monetize the lower end?

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1896510)

While philosophically possible, that's a pretty narrow band (and likely only for a transient time anyway) where giving up PS would make sense.

Once we trade it away, we will never get this level of it back. Ever.