Originally Posted by ERflyer (Post 1902646)

Is accusing someone of being on FPL your best line of attack when someone thinks this TA might be okay to vote yes on. FYI: I'm still undecided. Leaning yes now.

Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1903042)

For everyone asking about quarterly results and PTIX and profit sharing, this is the deal....

I feel as though there is a fundamental misunderstanding about pay and profit sharing. I'm not here to argue for or against nor am I going to tell you how pay raises are going to be funded.

But the reality is that Q earnings are completely irrelevant. First off, we are still under the old profit sharing scheme for this year. 2016 is when the change would be in effect.

If you reference the bar graph of 6 billion PTIX 2018 salary+profit sharing, with and without a deal (I posted earlier); this is the worst case scenario. We will be making more money with this deal across the board no matter what.

Anything above $6BN we will start making significantly more.

I think making the pay / p/s argument is a poor one. This deal gives all of us more money, regardless.

The questions to ask are:

1. Is in enough money?
2. Is it enough money in light of what you view as concessions in other areas?

I think that is a more honest debate to have.

Originally Posted by capncrunch (Post 1903050)

You also have to account for the loss of wide body jobs(and its trickle down) associated with the joint venture changes. There is more to the contract than straight pay.

Originally Posted by Raging white (Post 1902657)

Do I get this right, you're willing to sell the FO's quality of life for a raise? Not sure the FO's will support your "I got mine" position, but I respect your honesty.

Originally Posted by Timbo (Post 1902792)

Parking the entire 747 fleet in 18 months will affect him, I hope you asked him when he was going to A330 school...:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1903042)

For everyone asking about quarterly results and PTIX and profit sharing, this is the deal....

I feel as though there is a fundamental misunderstanding about pay and profit sharing. I'm not here to argue for or against nor am I going to tell you how pay raises are going to be funded.

But the reality is that Q earnings are completely irrelevant. First off, we are still under the old profit sharing scheme for this year. 2016 is when the change would be in effect.

If you reference the bar graph of 6 billion PTIX 2018 salary+profit sharing, with and without a deal (I posted earlier); this is the worst case scenario. We will be making more money with this deal across the board no matter what.

Anything above $6BN we will start making significantly more.

I think making the pay / p/s argument is a poor one. This deal gives all of us more money, regardless.

The questions to ask are:

1. Is in enough money?
2. Is it enough money in light of what you view as concessions in other areas?

I think that is a more honest debate to have.

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 1902837)

As of July we have 441 positions paying top of scale. The eventual $330/hr, if we gain 350s as we retire 747s, only 3.5% of the list will get those rates at any given time. Sorry to say but you won't see that. And if and when you do you should already have a nice 401k or other plan that was established from all your Narrowbody flying. I'll never see it and I plan to retire at 60.

Originally Posted by Professor (Post 1903053)

FYI Delta wide body capacity is to grow 9% via deliveries in the life of this contract.

Originally Posted by notEnuf (Post 1903066)

I respectfully disagree. The PS ties us to all of Delta's revenue. The pay rates are for your personal hours flown or credited. We make money in a variety of ways, actually flying airplanes is only one. This is about global investment and getting something for outsourced flying.

For example:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/delta-...201412909.html

Originally Posted by capncrunch (Post 1903069)

Looking at our WB deliveries as a way to blow off a major concession to our joint venture language is a bad idea. Think about the growth if we don't change the language and the company gets into compliance. Much better than 9% growth.