Originally Posted by Boatbuilder (Post 1898314)

Sorry to rehash old topics, but I like to look at all options and consider past history. The profit history of this industry is not very consistent. Sure right now things are wonderful and I'm thankful for it, but I wouldn't count on it to continue.
This industry is NOT proactive, it's reactive and it keeps making the same mistakes over and over. Just look at the ticket sales at SWA. Same old shtick.
Delta likes to make a big deal about paying down debt. That's all well and good, but at some point we are going to need to spend some big bucks. The Mad Dogs need replacing, our tech is ancient and other parts of our fleet are getting up there too.
Right now it's all about looking good for the street. Short term stuff. Stock buybacks and "shareholder value"

All that being said the % increase would have to be VERY significant for me to consider a yes vote for a TA that modified PS.

Originally Posted by D Mantooth (Post 1898300)

Serious question:

Would you trade 10% lower payrates for 10% higher profit sharing?

I certainly wouldn't.

So why the angst over a "rumor" of the converse? How did profit sharing become some sacred cow, when for many years on many properties it was worthless? Shoot, I recall the derision when it was negotiated in the first place.

I'm all for keeping the top end of profit sharing. It protects us from looking like schmucks if the company is wildly successful. But why wouldn't I trade some of the bottom end? It's a defined number. Give it to me in my payrates.

It seems many here are making the mistake of believing these good times will last forever.

I'm all for exchanging a "probably" dollar tomorrow for a "definitely" dollar today.

Originally Posted by Purple Drank (Post 1898317)

Boatbuilder and Mantooth are trying to get us focused on rates.

How about the concessions??

Sick leave, LCA trips, SCOPE!!

Originally Posted by RockyBoy (Post 1898345)

I think we all agree with the concept of "monetizing" PS. What most of us don't agree with is calling "monetizing" PS a raise a month after they approved 5 BILLION in stock buybacks and increased dividends.

How about we settle the TA without touching PS. If they want to monetize PS we can do that via the LOA process once we agree on a contract. We shouldn't be doing this inside the section 6 negotiations. I think we all said that in our contract surveys which obviously mean nothing.

Originally Posted by D Mantooth (Post 1898300)

Serious question:

Would you trade 10% lower payrates for 10% higher profit sharing?

I certainly wouldn't.

So why the angst over a "rumor" of the converse? How did profit sharing become some sacred cow, when for many years on many properties it was worthless? Shoot, I recall the derision when it was negotiated in the first place.

I'm all for keeping the top end of profit sharing. It protects us from looking like schmucks if the company is wildly successful. But why wouldn't I trade some of the bottom end? It's a defined number. Give it to me in my payrates.

It seems many here are making the mistake of believing these good times will last forever.

I'm all for exchanging a "probably" dollar tomorrow for a "definitely" dollar today.

Originally Posted by SharpestTool (Post 1898267)

Clearly you are babbling.

The MEC will vote on this thing and we will or won't get our vote, depending on their decision. I'm asking a single question. How can a group who green lighted the table position turn around and reject that position? Doesn't bode well if it happens. Will it be the end of the world? Clearly not. I just think however it will frame what we will see in the end in that the MEC will lack credibility with the company.

However, I think a more valid path that could lead to a significantly different result would be a failed ratification by the pilots. Yes, it would take a considerable time to get a new MEC and NC. That time would be an expense that would dilute the final results to a certain extent. If the majority is onboard with paying that cost, so be it. Hopefully it wouldn't drag on for years instead of months.

I think it does not bode well for an MEC to flip flop. Again my thinking is that if they reject, they actually had a very thin consensus to begin with when they green lighted the NC. That says we have a divided MEC, which is what I've said all along. The MEC last time had a thin majority approving the 2012 TA, where the dissenters actually campaigned to defeat it via the ratification process. What happens this time if the apparent swing voter or voters switch camps? Clearly the TA will fail. Will we have the same split MEC? Absolutely. I don't see epic agreements coming from such an MEC. Nor do I see RA giving the respect such an MEC needs to have to force his hand.

All this is speculation of course. Maybe they will have the votes. I hope so. Flip-flopping governing bodies are painful to watch. Check out history of the APA as a nice illustration.

Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1898277)

My shirt will be tucked into my underwear.;)

Originally Posted by DeadHead (Post 1898343)

Perhaps you and the rest of the "long time lurkers, first time posters" know something we don't.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1898351)

You're assuming that $1 guaranteed pay is equal to $1 of PS at the beginning of your post but then you are essentially saying a lower year end W2 is better if the guarantee pay is higher.

So which is better:

A) $100k on 1000 credit hours per year plus 20% PS = $120k

B) $110k on 1000 credit hours per year plus 5% PS = $115k