Details on Delta TA
06-08-2015, 06:25 AM
#6211
Doesn't Get Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,598
Originally Posted by D Mantooth
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.
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.
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.
06-08-2015, 06:27 AM
#6212
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Position: 330
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
Boatbuilder and Mantooth are trying to get us focused on rates.
How about the concessions??
Sick leave, LCA trips, SCOPE!!
How about the concessions??
Sick leave, LCA trips, SCOPE!!
06-08-2015, 06:30 AM
#6213
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
Originally Posted by RockyBoy
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.
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.
I chuckled when we got PS in the bankruptcy contract (yes NWAs was worse) and never thought it would be more than beer money at best.......who'd a thunk it would be this much (not your wage an salary administration guys in HR). But it is, and it just can't be swapped at this point.
Ferd
06-08-2015, 06:31 AM
#6214
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by D Mantooth
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.
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.
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
06-08-2015, 06:33 AM
#6215
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Originally Posted by SharpestTool
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.
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.
As far as APA goes..........I think you are comparing apples and oranges. I agree that we broke the log jam with C2012. It's a minor reason for why I voted for it. We have a much better current/active contract than they did for those years. Again, why can't we follow the foot print of negotiations for C2001?
Denny
06-08-2015, 06:35 AM
#6217
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: 717a
Posts: 647
Originally Posted by DeadHead
Perhaps you and the rest of the "long time lurkers, first time posters" know something we don't.
06-08-2015, 06:38 AM
#6218
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Posts: 260
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
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
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
I'm saying that at any definite percentage of profit sharing, there is an easily calculated dollar value. I would not be opposed to making that dollar value guaranteed. I can't imagine why anybody would.
I'm not suggesting that we accept lower payrates in exchange for it.
06-08-2015, 06:38 AM
#6219
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,143
My misery
Are we doing so poorly that we need to end this misery? I am not. If our reps vote to send us the language of this TA they are endorsing it and its content. I think we should have a look prior but that is not my decision. What happens if I don't get to see the shoulds, best efforts and at the discretion of s language? That would mean the reps deemed it not worthy of my time. I don't mind my current misery, I will happily continue these negotiations and collect the current benefits of our current amendable never expiring contract. If we were negotiating for our current profit sharing in this environment it would be a near impossibility. Why would that be give up for anything? Please, reps don't give up any of this huge lever we have that will never expire.
06-08-2015, 06:40 AM
#6220
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Originally Posted by D Mantooth
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.
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.
Denny
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
