Search
Notices

Details on Delta TA

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 07-26-2014, 06:27 AM
  #81  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Alan Shore's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,299
Default

Originally Posted by Denny Crane View Post
If, there are 6000 training events in a year caused by 1000 retirements, and if 100% of the training events were eliminated, I calculate approximately 500 jobs lost. This is not including anything in the training dept. because of less training. A little bit of assuming here but follow me:

Assume one training event is one month long and each training event pays one month (ALV). If this is the case then 1 pilot job would equal 12 training events (12 months in a year). Take 6000 training events and divide by 12 would give you 500 pilot jobs. And that's if no training events at all happened. Even with pay banding, we know some training will happen so the number of lost pilot jobs will be somewhere between 0-500.
Good back-of-the-napkin math, my fellow flamingo. I agree.
Alan Shore is offline  
Old 07-26-2014, 08:12 AM
  #82  
Runs with scissors
 
Timbo's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,722
Default

Here's my 'go to' litmus test when it comes to major changes in our contract or the way we get paid:

Who asked for it?

If Management asked for it, it is a benefit to them, not us, just like PBS and/or opening early, to reduce our profit sharing, just prior to record earnings.
Timbo is offline  
Old 07-26-2014, 09:02 AM
  #83  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,263
Default

Originally Posted by Timbo View Post
Here's my 'go to' litmus test when it comes to major changes in our contract or the way we get paid:

Who asked for it?

If Management asked for it, it is a benefit to them, not us, just like PBS and/or opening early, to reduce our profit sharing, just prior to record earnings.
Kind of odd however how they asked to reduce the profit sharing. The way they did it was essentially a fixed amount and would have the greatest impact in times of small earnings. With the projected earnings this year it seems they made a big mistake.
sailingfun is offline  
Old 07-26-2014, 09:35 AM
  #84  
Back on TDY
 
Carl Spackler's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Default

Originally Posted by sailingfun View Post
Kind of odd however how they asked to reduce the profit sharing.
First of all, they didn't "ask" for anything. They told our guys this is how it's going to be...or you're not going to like what plan B is. Second, how is it odd? They knew their profits were going to be strong for the duration of our contract, so they said we must accept getting it cut in half. We said, oh yes sir Mr. Anderson. Nothing odd at all here at Delta.

Originally Posted by sailingfun View Post
The way they did it was essentially a fixed amount and would have the greatest impact in times of small earnings.
It was not a fixed amount..."essentially" or otherwise. The reduction we accepted was 50% above ~2.5 billion. That makes the reduction variable depending on the amount of profit above ~2.5 billion.

Originally Posted by sailingfun View Post
With the projected earnings this year it seems they made a big mistake.
They sure did. I'm certain they're thinking now they should have demanded 0% profit sharing above 2.5 billion...or watch out for plan B. Our guys would have said, oh yes sir Mr. Anderson. Big tactical mistake by Richard, and one he won't be making again.

Carl
Carl Spackler is offline  
Old 07-26-2014, 09:43 AM
  #85  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Alan Shore's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,299
Default

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler View Post
First of all, they didn't "ask" for anything. They told our guys this is how it's going to be...or you're not going to like what plan B is.l
Proof, please, as this is not at all what I heard from my reps.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler View Post
It was not a fixed amount..."essentially" or otherwise. The reduction we accepted was 50% above ~2.5 billion. That makes the reduction variable depending on the amount of profit above ~2.5 billion.
What on Earth are you talking about here, big guy? The employee group went from 15% of PTIX below $2.5B to 10% of PTIX below $2.5B. We still get 20% of PTIX above $2.5B.

I agree that the reduction is variable, but it ranges from zero (if Delta has zero or negative PTIX) to $125M (if Delta has at least $2.5B PTIX), and we lost about 35% of that amount. But we all still share in the same 20% of PTIX above $2.5B.
Alan Shore is offline  
Old 07-26-2014, 09:57 AM
  #86  
Back on TDY
 
Carl Spackler's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Default

Originally Posted by Alan Shore View Post
Proof, please, as this is not at all what I heard from my reps.
The reps didn't negotiate C2012, the NC and certain MEC administrators did. Those guys posted here (and stated during road shows) that this was the best we were going to get and that we would not like plan B if the pilots voted it down.

Originally Posted by Alan Shore View Post
What on Earth are you talking about here, big guy? The employee group went from 15% of PTIX below $2.5B to 10% of PTIX below $2.5B. We still get 20% of PTIX above $2.5B.

I agree that the reduction is variable, but it ranges from zero (if Delta has zero or negative PTIX) to $125M (if Delta has at least $2.5B PTIX), and we lost about 35% of that amount. But we all still share in the same 20% of PTIX above $2.5B.
My apologies, I got that reversed in my head. I said above 2.5 when I should have said below.

Apologies again.

Carl
Carl Spackler is offline  
Old 07-26-2014, 10:47 AM
  #87  
Moderator
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Default

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler View Post
The reps didn't negotiate C2012, the NC and certain MEC administrators did. Those guys posted here (and stated during road shows) that this was the best we were going to get and that we would not like plan B if the pilots voted it down.

Carl
So in one post you claim the NC didn't ask for anything. They were simply TOLD what the deal would be. Then in the following post you state that the NC and certain MEC administrators negotiated the deal. So which one was it? Did they negotiate? Or did they just wait for something to be passed across the table, and then accepted it?
johnso29 is offline  
Old 07-26-2014, 10:56 AM
  #88  
Back on TDY
 
Carl Spackler's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Default

Originally Posted by johnso29 View Post
So in one post you claim the NC didn't ask for anything. They were simply TOLD what the deal would be.
That's correct.

Originally Posted by johnso29 View Post
Then in the following post you state that the NC and certain MEC administrators negotiated the deal.
That's correct.

Originally Posted by johnso29 View Post
So which one was it? Did they negotiate?
When you're in the room to negotiate a deal, and hold the titles of being members of a negotiating committee, then your activities are considered to be that of negotiations...even if you just do what you're told by the "opposing" party.

Originally Posted by johnso29 View Post
Or did they just wait for something to be passed across the table, and then accepted it?
Don't know if they waited. Just know they accepted what was passed across the table to them because they knew what management's Plan B would be if they didn't. But hey, time value of money and not angering our partner is important.

Carl
Carl Spackler is offline  
Old 07-26-2014, 11:00 AM
  #89  
Moderator
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Default

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler View Post
When you're in the room to negotiate a deal, and hold the titles of being members of a negotiating committee, then your activities are considered to be that of negotiations...even if you just do what you're told by the "opposing" party.



Don't know if they waited. Just know they accepted what was passed across the table to them because they knew what management's Plan B would be if they didn't. But hey, time value of money and not angering our partner is important.

Carl
So to summarize your post, you have absolutely no proof that negotiating didn't occur. Thanks for clarifying what was already known.
johnso29 is offline  
Old 07-26-2014, 11:06 AM
  #90  
Back on TDY
 
Carl Spackler's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Default

Originally Posted by johnso29 View Post
So to summarize your post, you have absolutely no proof that negotiating didn't occur. Thanks for clarifying what was already known.
Oh there absolutely was negotiations. Here's a video from it:





Carl
Carl Spackler is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Kilroy
ExpressJet
10671
01-11-2016 06:49 AM
FastDEW
Major
201
09-03-2011 06:42 AM
Quagmire
Major
253
04-16-2011 06:19 AM
ksatflyer
Hangar Talk
10
08-20-2008 09:14 PM
INAV8OR
Mergers and Acquisitions
66
05-15-2008 04:37 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices