PS certainly is a part of yearly compensation calculation, and it's in the same part of the PWA as the rate tables.

If one chooses to not include PS as a valid component of Section 3 in the current PWA, then to give equal credence there should be no inclusion of a DB value when talking about retirement plans then versus present.

There continues to be an unhealthy and inaccurate focus on "rates". It is a woefully incomplete data point with which to make a valid comparison on the compensation we receive. We are still way under-compensated overall, but the focus needs to be increasing W2, days off, and other QOL also...... NOT just one part of Section 3.

 

Why not?

To the extent that profit sharing is based on a percentage of our wages, it becomes a variable component of those wages. So, if Airline A pays $100/hour with a profit sharing plan that can pay up to 20% and Airline B pays $100/hour with no profit sharing plan, one can correctly state that Airline A pays its pilots a variable rate of $100-120/hour and therefore more on average than Airline B (assuming an average profitability > 0).

 

I agree that all of these, except perhaps the 401(k) piece, provide us with leverage we did not have in 2000. The industry comparison is the one component that is still not as good as it was back then.

I'm hoping that, in aggregate, our leverage is higher now than it was then.

 

They were certainly more vocal and antagonistic toward management.

 

Then one could just as honestly say that a 20% reduction in profit sharing was the same as a 20% reduction in pay?

Of course the big variable is the sustainability over time of profit sharing in a highly cyclical industry. Some say it shouldn't count as pay since it could end if the profits do, but then accuse anyone who says the economy may not be as robust as some claim as managing expectations.

The one thing for sure is that the company can always afford to pay it. If we trade it away for a raise, and the profits stop, will we be able to hold on to that raise? Imagine a multi billion dollar swing to the negative for a few years. Would we really end up keeping the raises we got by trading profit sharing for them?

I think we have given enough profit sharing away. There is no need to give up more. We are also due raises. No matter what raises we get, we will only get profit sharing if there are profits to share. If we get raises and still have big second tier profits, then by definition the company easily could afford both. Them saying we musy fund our big raised by giving up profit sharing is bad faith IMO because they are basically saying even with those raises they are expecting big profits, particularly second tier profits. Giving up one for another only gives the company upside protection since the downside protection is already built in.

 

Did you even read my response to your direct question as to what I'd like to see in C2015? You never responded to it.

 

So you agree that QOL is inadequate. Yet you and all the Dalpa regulars pushed hard on C12 with negligible overall improvements--in return for flat-out concessions--in the interest of "fleeting opportunities" and "the time value of money."

Will you go on the record now, opposing any TA that doesn't meaningfully improve compensation and QOL?

No more "extenuating circumstances" excuses for a bull**** contract.

Show me the money and time off.

 

OK. Show your work. And fwiw, I couldn't care less about pay rates or TFP conversions. It is all about W2. Period.

So go ahead. Blow my mind.

 

If you want to monetize the PS, that's fine. But that should not be part of the consideration for the upcoming contract as far as pay rates go. Delta IS going to be making money, and lots of it over the course of the upcoming contract. So that monitization of the PS should be over and above the pay increases we should get in this contract. Good luck getting the company to buy off on THAT, but if you think it can be done I'll listen. I'd still rather takes my chances with the likes another Barry Obama in the WH, but to trade it for pay "security"?? nuh uh. The loudmouths are right on this one. We shouldn't pay for our raises with a PS reduction.

 

Uh oh.... oh hell..... um.... I agree with you.