Details on Delta TA
06-10-2015 | 09:17 AM
#7171
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 1,418
Likes: 0
Just a 2 year guy here that is expecting about an 18000 profit sharing check for 2015 wondering what that check looks like for 2016 if we make 6 billion?
The other thing is what impact on profit sharing is there if we traded all profit sharing for wages? ie if we take 500 million from the company in contract increases, this would reduce profits by 500 million and thus 100 million less in profit sharing to us?
The other thing is what impact on profit sharing is there if we traded all profit sharing for wages? ie if we take 500 million from the company in contract increases, this would reduce profits by 500 million and thus 100 million less in profit sharing to us?
2 - Increased expenses reduce profit.
06-10-2015 | 09:19 AM
#7172
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,457
Likes: 0
From: LAX ERA
06-10-2015 | 09:22 AM
#7173
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,233
Likes: 0
Guys,
I am DGS-ing in the training center. I retired and I can say that I don't care.
But I remember doing hundreds of your CQ's after C2012 and how you were regretting your yes votes.
I heard so many times "it is the contract now and we voted on it".
Get your swingers on the MEC to man up!
I am DGS-ing in the training center. I retired and I can say that I don't care.
But I remember doing hundreds of your CQ's after C2012 and how you were regretting your yes votes.
I heard so many times "it is the contract now and we voted on it".
Get your swingers on the MEC to man up!
06-10-2015 | 09:30 AM
#7175
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,707
Likes: 0
From: Permanently scarred
06-10-2015 | 09:33 AM
#7176
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,971
Likes: 0
From: Kickin’ Back
06-10-2015 | 09:45 AM
#7178
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
From: M88 B
Last year it was 16.58% on a PTIX of roughly 4.5 billion. Disclaimer: I am not entirely sure of last years PTIX. For this year if we did 6 billion in PTIX you could expect a percentage well north of 16.58.... my guess is it will be closer to 20-25%. OF course if this TA passes you will loose at large sum of this that was converted to wages in 2016. That's why you see a whopping 0.25% effective wage increase next year not the 6%. You will fund that raise from PS.
06-10-2015 | 09:46 AM
#7179
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
From: DAL FO
You say that absent one issue, you could support this ta.
You then admit that the pay is "underwhelming."
You could really support a ta that has "underwhelming" pay during what is probably the best negotiating environment we have had in a long, long time?
Billions and Billions of record profits, combined with the company finding 5 BILLION lying around to do a stock buyback with, and you are ok with "underwhelming" pay?
I am also curious what you think the "plenty good" (your words) is in this ta? Plenty?
.
You then admit that the pay is "underwhelming."
You could really support a ta that has "underwhelming" pay during what is probably the best negotiating environment we have had in a long, long time?
Billions and Billions of record profits, combined with the company finding 5 BILLION lying around to do a stock buyback with, and you are ok with "underwhelming" pay?
I am also curious what you think the "plenty good" (your words) is in this ta? Plenty?
.
I am going to refrain from listing my opinion of the good items on here, as much as I am trying to avoid slamming the negatives until I fully understand everything. I think we are all better served by looking at each point objectively and letting it pass/fail on its own.
06-10-2015 | 09:52 AM
#7180
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
I was content to lurk here until the subject of Professor being on FPL was raised. I have no problem with gathering information (it's one reason I sent in a DPA card and, in the early 90s, a PPA card). I do have a problem with paying FPL to a guy to post on a forum that is unconnected to ALPA or Delta. Especially a guy who is doing his darnedest to paint the TA in as positive a light as possible while still being able to claim that he is only providing information. Claiming that only 180 pilots will be "directly impacted" by FO/LCA restrictions is borderline disingenuous. We may not even get a chance to vote on this TA so why do we need to pay FPL to a guy posting on APC? We have a road show process where FPL can legitimately be paid for people who can provide all the same info that Prof is providing. IMO this is an inappropriate use of my dues dollars.
I will be voting no.
I will be voting no.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
