Delta Stock Price and our Profit Sharing
10-27-2015, 06:11 AM
#1
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 66
Delta Stock Price and our Profit Sharing
The Devils in the details.
Most of us missed this one.
The Profits the company gets for an increase in stock value that we currently get paid out on through the Definition of pretix for profit sharing would have been removed in the language put in the failed TA.
This is going to amount to a huge amount this year and in the coming years due to the stock buy backs and increase in dividend both designed to increase the stock value.
I believe the biggest concession in the failed TA was this recalculation of the formula for profit sharing. The Managements Stock bonus carve out and the Equity section carve out mentioned above.
MORE LIGHT NEEDS TO BE SHED ON THIS
Most of us missed this one.
The Profits the company gets for an increase in stock value that we currently get paid out on through the Definition of pretix for profit sharing would have been removed in the language put in the failed TA.
This is going to amount to a huge amount this year and in the coming years due to the stock buy backs and increase in dividend both designed to increase the stock value.
I believe the biggest concession in the failed TA was this recalculation of the formula for profit sharing. The Managements Stock bonus carve out and the Equity section carve out mentioned above.
MORE LIGHT NEEDS TO BE SHED ON THIS
10-27-2015, 06:25 AM
#2
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Originally Posted by yodafly
The Devils in the details.
Most of us missed this one.
The Profits the company gets for an increase in stock value that we currently get paid out on through the Definition of pretix for profit sharing would have been removed in the language put in the failed TA.
This is going to amount to a huge amount this year and in the coming years due to the stock buy backs and increase in dividend both designed to increase the stock value.
I believe the biggest concession in the failed TA was this recalculation of the formula for profit sharing. The Managements Stock bonus carve out and the Equity section carve out mentioned above.
MORE LIGHT NEEDS TO BE SHED ON THIS
Most of us missed this one.
The Profits the company gets for an increase in stock value that we currently get paid out on through the Definition of pretix for profit sharing would have been removed in the language put in the failed TA.
This is going to amount to a huge amount this year and in the coming years due to the stock buy backs and increase in dividend both designed to increase the stock value.
I believe the biggest concession in the failed TA was this recalculation of the formula for profit sharing. The Managements Stock bonus carve out and the Equity section carve out mentioned above.
MORE LIGHT NEEDS TO BE SHED ON THIS
10-27-2015, 06:51 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,032
Originally Posted by scambo1
There's no question the failed TA had concessionary language wrt profit sharing. Thankfully, it failed.
10-27-2015, 06:51 AM
#4
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,868
That above is part of the reason that not changing PS was my highest priority item in the online survey.
The current PS is very powerful mechanism that will automatically return after any future down-times. We have seen what happens to pay-rates after a return to good times - we have to trade away QOL items to get pay-rates to return and it could easily take over a decade just like the current situation.
In the long term we are probably all better off risking the occasional down year with PS then trading it away forever on a one time swap for an inadequate raise. Remember PS returns automatically and instantly with a return to profits - no QOL trades required. This is why management rues the day they gave us this plan - it has reduces their control of our compensation.
Scoop
The current PS is very powerful mechanism that will automatically return after any future down-times. We have seen what happens to pay-rates after a return to good times - we have to trade away QOL items to get pay-rates to return and it could easily take over a decade just like the current situation.
In the long term we are probably all better off risking the occasional down year with PS then trading it away forever on a one time swap for an inadequate raise. Remember PS returns automatically and instantly with a return to profits - no QOL trades required. This is why management rues the day they gave us this plan - it has reduces their control of our compensation.
Scoop
10-27-2015, 09:46 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2011
Posts: 534
I accept the argument from the TA sellers that trading profit sharing for a raise would never mean less money. (Don't agree that we should trade profit sharing, though). That being said, wouldn't the PS trade for rates only be better if all the other terms remain the same? Eg, the definition of PTIX. By raising the threshold AND changing definitions, could we possibly lose?
Serious question, not trying to spread misinformation.
Serious question, not trying to spread misinformation.
10-27-2015, 09:54 AM
#7
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Originally Posted by buckleyboy
I accept the argument from the TA sellers that trading profit sharing for a raise would never mean less money. (Don't agree that we should trade profit sharing, though). That being said, wouldn't the PS trade for rates only be better if all the other terms remain the same? Eg, the definition of PTIX. By raising the threshold AND changing definitions, could we possibly lose?
Serious question, not trying to spread misinformation.
Serious question, not trying to spread misinformation.
It seems paranoid to think the company would be out to get us. But, they did just circumvent 3B4 somewhat. They did previously use bankruptcy as a business tool to cut costs...ours most significantly. The list goes on as most of you know.
So, is it paranoia to think they're out to get us. Or is it watchful wariness?
Call it what you want. I think one of our most important contract goals needs to be loophole closing. And I lament the loss of 3B6.
If our union wants us to be at-will employees, they need to refund our dues.
10-28-2015, 07:41 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 106
Allowing DAL to change the definition of PTIX would be remembered as yet another case of "we didn't think they would do that" in the future.
Disagree? Remember at the TA road shows when they said that the change in PTIX was "already factored in" the 5.74% decrease in PS? Already factored in....based on how management compensated themselves BEFORE the change to PTIX definition. AS IF they wouldn't radically change their formula's to take advantage of the change in PTIX definition.
Ignorant? Stupid? Unbelievably Naive? Gullible?...... So many adjectives to describe it I just can't decide which is best.
And how about the trading 1 for 1 of PS for pay rates? Sounds reasonable right? It probably would be....for exactly 1 contract cycle. At the next section 6 do we really believe that, when DAL and/or the NMB compares our hourly rates to the rest of the industry, they will separate out the hourly rate numbers that resulted from the PS trade? Team YES screams over and over that the NMB is going to compare our total compensation to the industry and laugh us out of the room when we put pay rate increases on the table.
So, a DAL pilot making $200/hour now gets a 10% increase as part of a 1 for 1 PS trade. So now he makes $220/hour and gets 10% less PS. 3 years later at contract time DAL and/or the NMB look at our compensation and see that $220/hr has the DAL pilot ahead of our peer airlines. They then proceed to use that "premium" against us in negotiations, conveniently forgetting that it came from converting PS into pay rates 3 years ago. It's a 1 time exchange that will be completely forgotten about in the future and we will be right back to negotiations as usual.
Disagree? Remember at the TA road shows when they said that the change in PTIX was "already factored in" the 5.74% decrease in PS? Already factored in....based on how management compensated themselves BEFORE the change to PTIX definition. AS IF they wouldn't radically change their formula's to take advantage of the change in PTIX definition.
Ignorant? Stupid? Unbelievably Naive? Gullible?...... So many adjectives to describe it I just can't decide which is best.
And how about the trading 1 for 1 of PS for pay rates? Sounds reasonable right? It probably would be....for exactly 1 contract cycle. At the next section 6 do we really believe that, when DAL and/or the NMB compares our hourly rates to the rest of the industry, they will separate out the hourly rate numbers that resulted from the PS trade? Team YES screams over and over that the NMB is going to compare our total compensation to the industry and laugh us out of the room when we put pay rate increases on the table.
So, a DAL pilot making $200/hour now gets a 10% increase as part of a 1 for 1 PS trade. So now he makes $220/hour and gets 10% less PS. 3 years later at contract time DAL and/or the NMB look at our compensation and see that $220/hr has the DAL pilot ahead of our peer airlines. They then proceed to use that "premium" against us in negotiations, conveniently forgetting that it came from converting PS into pay rates 3 years ago. It's a 1 time exchange that will be completely forgotten about in the future and we will be right back to negotiations as usual.
10-28-2015, 01:00 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: Widget Jet
Posts: 765
Good point ATL7ER... as of now or the failed TA when they wanted to trade PS for pay. Same thing just happened. Did they forget all we gave in '04. Our pension gone? It's only when PS got huge does it become a big deal. I say NO. We earned it and now you want to take it? It'll cost you. Fix the pay rates... then let's talk about a PS trade. But not before that...
tail
tail
