![]() |
5.74% of gross earnings less that the current formula, further reduced by impact of the PTIX definition change. That hasn't been quantified, because "modifications" to executive compensation further reduce the size of the profit sharing pool.
|
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2006137)
Things that make you go hmmm...
International capacity up 15% at Grupo Aeromexico - Grupo Aeromexico SAB DE CV (OTCMKTS:GRPAF) | Seeking Alpha Delta owns 20% of AeroMexico. AeroMexico is expanding international capacity while Delta is shrinking it. Profit sharing is the only way pilots make money as this business model is expanded. |
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2006137)
Things that make you go hmmm...
International capacity up 15% at Grupo Aeromexico - Grupo Aeromexico SAB DE CV (OTCMKTS:GRPAF) | Seeking Alpha Delta owns 20% of AeroMexico. AeroMexico is expanding international capacity while Delta is shrinking it. Profit sharing is the only way pilots make money as this business model is expanded. The only answer I gave on the contract survey was that we need to make all scope and JV language 100% airtight before any action was taken on PS. We will shoot ourselves in the foot 100x worse than post 2000 if we give up PS while the company turns into a ticket agency for other airlines. |
Originally Posted by Erdude32
(Post 2006361)
Any idea what the PS would have been using the Reduced numbers in the TA? I realize no changes took place until 2017, so 2016 is going to be big no matter what. So if the profit remains the same throughout 2016 & we agree to a new TA with the same PS trade they were asking for, what would the 2/17 % be vs w/out a TA?
|
International scope is the new area focus. This is what we need to protect. Delta wants to sell tickets. Our only hand in that honey pot is with profit sharing. Dont touch my Profit $haring!!!
|
hence changing the name to 'pension subsidy'.......then go suggest to the pilot group ....."So lets trade our pension (subsidy) for pay rates?"....and see what the reaction is going to be.
its all about the language. |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 2006432)
We are a domestic airline with a couple of token international flights. Hence, no reason to acquire used 777s, we have too many international WBs as is. :mad:
We need to match industry standard that is already enjoyed by AMR and UAL. Especially being that within 5-6 years, we will have 82-86 a/c that would fit that combined category. |
Originally Posted by TheManager
(Post 2006705)
Even more reason why we need to band a330 and 767-400 pay to our 777 pay.
We need to match industry standard that is already enjoyed by AMR and UAL. Especially being that within 5-6 years, we will have 82-86 a/c that would fit that combined category. Well. That was the Moaks who did that. Hopefully the Malone's won't. But isn't it Moaks on the NC? |
Originally Posted by Erdude32
(Post 2006361)
Any idea what the PS would have been using the Reduced numbers in the TA? I realize no changes took place until 2017, so 2016 is going to be big no matter what. So if the profit remains the same throughout 2016 & we agree to a new TA with the same PS trade they were asking for, what would the 2/17 % be vs w/out a TA?
|
How come we have so few WB compared to other majors? Why is it so hard for us to keep orders or the WB we already have? What makes our contract different than AA or UAL or the EU carriers for that matter? Lufthansa just ordered 747-8 and 777-Xs... how can it be?
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:07 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands