3B4 Kiss at midnight
01-16-2016, 02:21 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,047
How do you reengage when your leadership has said they can't do any better? New NC and new MEC chairman and soon to be new C44 reps. Now we are able to reengage. If the leadership hadn't failed us so badly, we would have reengaged earlier. If C44 had held the recall election on a date that could be attended we would be 2 months ahead.
01-16-2016, 06:03 PM
#42
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,870
Originally Posted by Bandit262
The initial 8% raise was offset by some concessions that would probably be quantified in the 1-2% range. To state that the 1/1/16 6% raise would be totally offset by the Profit Sharing giveback is inaccurate. The PS plan was untouched for the 2016 earnings year with a normal payout in February 2017. So for the 2016 earnings year, there would have been a 6% raise on earnings NOT offset by PS reductions.
However, in 2017, the PS reductions would have taken effect, virtually eliminating the 6% 2016 raise. This combined with the 2017 raise of 3% would have actually yielded a paycut for 2017 vs. 2016.
It really matters not, as the proposed TA was rejected overwhelmingly. The Negotiating Committee has put forward a proposal with substantially more value for the Delta pilots.
Jim Villers
P2P Chairman
However, in 2017, the PS reductions would have taken effect, virtually eliminating the 6% 2016 raise. This combined with the 2017 raise of 3% would have actually yielded a paycut for 2017 vs. 2016.
It really matters not, as the proposed TA was rejected overwhelmingly. The Negotiating Committee has put forward a proposal with substantially more value for the Delta pilots.
Jim Villers
P2P Chairman
Jim,
I also like what you are doing with the P2P but your above statement is incorrect - you are off by a year. If the TA had passed our 2016 PS would all be under the 6.0B 20% trigger. Yes, the check actually comes in 2017 but the 6% 2016 pay-rate increase would effectively be totally cancelled by the PS reduction.
Thanks for your efforts and keep up the great work on the P2P!
Scoop
01-16-2016, 06:53 PM
#43
New Hire
Joined APC: Nov 2015
Position: ATL 320A
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by Scoop
Jim,
I also like what you are doing with the P2P but your above statement is incorrect - you are off by a year. If the TA had passed our 2016 PS would all be under the 6.0B 20% trigger. Yes, the check actually comes in 2017 but the 6% 2016 pay-rate increase would effectively be totally cancelled by the PS reduction.
Thanks for your efforts and keep up the great work on the P2P!
Scoop
I also like what you are doing with the P2P but your above statement is incorrect - you are off by a year. If the TA had passed our 2016 PS would all be under the 6.0B 20% trigger. Yes, the check actually comes in 2017 but the 6% 2016 pay-rate increase would effectively be totally cancelled by the PS reduction.
Thanks for your efforts and keep up the great work on the P2P!
Scoop
I will recheck, (as IF it matters), but I am almost certain, that the PS changes would not have gone into effect until the 2017 calculations for a 2018 payout; hence 2016 "pay" would have been the same.
In any case, that SHIP has sailed, and there really is no benefit in the debate about that rejected TA.
01-16-2016, 07:16 PM
#44
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by Bandit262
Scoop,
I will recheck, (as IF it matters), but I am almost certain, that the PS changes would not have gone into effect until the 2017 calculations for a 2018 payout; hence 2016 "pay" would have been the same.
In any case, that SHIP has sailed, and there really is no benefit in the debate about that rejected TA.
I will recheck, (as IF it matters), but I am almost certain, that the PS changes would not have gone into effect until the 2017 calculations for a 2018 payout; hence 2016 "pay" would have been the same.
In any case, that SHIP has sailed, and there really is no benefit in the debate about that rejected TA.
01-16-2016, 09:15 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,047
From Contrails 19 dated June 9, 2015
Profit Sharing:
• 20% trigger modified from $2.5B to $6.0B for profit sharing distribution for year 2016 and onward (paid on 2/15/2017)
• 5.74% of variable compensation converted to fixed compensation in the form of hourly pay rates, assuming the Company achieves PTIX of $6.0+ billion every year
o This impact is reduced if PTIX is less than $6 billion
• No cap on profit sharing (no change)
• Change in PTIX definition:
o Treat management compensation same as other employees compensation
o Remove stock volatility from profit sharing calculation by removing gains/losses on equity securities
• Changes would not become effective until 2017 profit sharing payout
• Base pay rates increase 17.9% prior to first profit sharing payout under the new profit sharing formula
Still no answers Falcon7. http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/de...ml#post2048407
Profit Sharing:
• 20% trigger modified from $2.5B to $6.0B for profit sharing distribution for year 2016 and onward (paid on 2/15/2017)
• 5.74% of variable compensation converted to fixed compensation in the form of hourly pay rates, assuming the Company achieves PTIX of $6.0+ billion every year
o This impact is reduced if PTIX is less than $6 billion
• No cap on profit sharing (no change)
• Change in PTIX definition:
o Treat management compensation same as other employees compensation
o Remove stock volatility from profit sharing calculation by removing gains/losses on equity securities
• Changes would not become effective until 2017 profit sharing payout
• Base pay rates increase 17.9% prior to first profit sharing payout under the new profit sharing formula
Still no answers Falcon7. http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/de...ml#post2048407
Last edited by notEnuf; 01-16-2016 at 09:25 PM.
01-17-2016, 03:41 AM
#46
Straight QOL, homie
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Posts: 4,202
Originally Posted by Bandit262
Scoop,
I will recheck, (as IF it matters), but I am almost certain, that the PS changes would not have gone into effect until the 2017 calculations for a 2018 payout; hence 2016 "pay" would have been the same.
In any case, that SHIP has sailed, and there really is no benefit in the debate about that rejected TA.
I will recheck, (as IF it matters), but I am almost certain, that the PS changes would not have gone into effect until the 2017 calculations for a 2018 payout; hence 2016 "pay" would have been the same.
In any case, that SHIP has sailed, and there really is no benefit in the debate about that rejected TA.
The NA15 ship has sailed, thank goodness, but the P2P ship has not.
I think you highlight the reason P2P can never be successful: people make mistakes and misinterpret. It can be honest or nefarious. But bad info is bad info.
This is not a knock on Jim, who is working diligently and with great integrity.
However, his gaffe is noteworthy.
P2P is obsolete. It used to work (or at least be justifiable) because the pilot group was largely uninformed and isolated from the discussion and each other.
Social media and the MD11 have changed all that forever.
The best way to spend P2P dollars is to disband P2P (and expensive roadshows) and replace with a robust series of interactive webinars with all the negotiators and subject matter experts.
01-17-2016, 04:39 AM
#48
Banned
Joined APC: Dec 2015
Posts: 108
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
Anyway, back on track.
Jim, is a 3B4 "status quo" grievance in the works? Thanks!
Jim, is a 3B4 "status quo" grievance in the works? Thanks!
If you mean past practice that is a term that covers grey areas in the contract. 3b4 is not a grey area. The company at one time gave Christmas bonuses. They are not in the contract so you can't as a matter of past practice demand them every year. The same applies to the shared rewards program. The raise was 1 Dec and per specific language a 3b4 review was triggered and the contract followed.
If you could somehow claim that past practice applies to areas in the contract that are plainly spelled out you run into the issue of the fact that the companies past practice has in fact been to award non contract employees a raise when a pilot TA has been reached. Contract 2012 being the most recent example.
What we need to be talking about is how to get the company back to the negotiating table because I have news for you. They aren't coming! That is where are focus needs to be.
01-17-2016, 05:18 AM
#49
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
As a couple guys posted, it is certainly incorrect.
The NA15 ship has sailed, thank goodness, but the P2P ship has not.
I think you highlight the reason P2P can never be successful: people make mistakes and misinterpret. It can be honest or nefarious. But bad info is bad info.
This is not a knock on Jim, who is working diligently and with great integrity.
However, his gaffe is noteworthy.
P2P is obsolete. It used to work (or at least be justifiable) because the pilot group was largely uninformed and isolated from the discussion and each other.
Social media and the MD11 have changed all that forever.
The best way to spend P2P dollars is to disband P2P (and expensive roadshows) and replace with a robust series of interactive webinars with all the negotiators and subject matter experts.
The NA15 ship has sailed, thank goodness, but the P2P ship has not.
I think you highlight the reason P2P can never be successful: people make mistakes and misinterpret. It can be honest or nefarious. But bad info is bad info.
This is not a knock on Jim, who is working diligently and with great integrity.
However, his gaffe is noteworthy.
P2P is obsolete. It used to work (or at least be justifiable) because the pilot group was largely uninformed and isolated from the discussion and each other.
Social media and the MD11 have changed all that forever.
The best way to spend P2P dollars is to disband P2P (and expensive roadshows) and replace with a robust series of interactive webinars with all the negotiators and subject matter experts.
His recollection error is just that, a human error...it is misinformation due to his signature block but, IMO, not significant enough to say he or p2p is obsolete.
Black shirt sales job p2p was criminal. If p2p was 1 man, J. Villers, deep, I would be okay with that. Call it something else if it makes us happy.
The problem highlighted is that the title and the person can't be separated. Jim is an advocate for truth to the pilot group. He wasn't spinning anything. He had a recollection error.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
