The only reason the company offered Profit sharing is because they never thought they would be writing checks that big to us.

 

Oh sweet baby Jesus, you finally wrote something that is not vitriol laden that I can actually agree with.

 

We will have to agree to disagree. Unless you are in a deflationary environment, which is very rare, money now is always worth more than money later. I would rather have my PS money up front, twice monthly, throughout the year, rather than waiting for it the following February. If I offered you $20 now, or $20 next February, why would you want to wait?

That said, things are a bit more complex with our contract and PS arrangement. Before I just say "no I'm right and you're wrong!" I'll contact my reps for clarification.

I still say a one-for-one PS for pay rate trade is a good deal. More importantly, the math says so. Just don't call it a pay raise, because it is not. Those two discussions need to be held independently of each other.

 

Your wrong and here is why:

By giving up Profit Sharing for pay rates, you are also giving up additional 3B4 pay increases. Your paying twice for the same gain.

 

Not in APCland it isn't.

That being said, if they want to trade PS, they can do it after our new deal with the raises we deserve is inked and dried. Over and above what is required to vault us to the top of the industry.

 

Sure. Let's take $20 now instead of $20 now AND $20 in February. Just brilliant!

You're trading 2 for 1

 

Show me the math with real quantifiable examples. .55% isn't it. That said I will concede you may be right.

 

Do you believe the American pilots did well in the scenario that sailing laid out?

Hint: I have had American pilots tell me that they lost huge amounts of money that they will never recover, and this was AFTER they signed this deal.

In what you just wrote, you are assuming we can get 200% of the original deal within a relatively short time frame. There is a mathematical line where this is achievable, but the money you lost waiting to achieve it is gone forever. When LUV was the gold standard around here, their pay increases were small but constant. Funny how that never seems to work here. If our contract garners us pay increases that do vault us to the top, we should try to follow that model. But then again I believe Warren Buffett when he says the 9th wonder of the world is compound interest.

 

Any 'trade' of profit sharing for pay rates is really a double hit for the pilots.

How?

Here's how: Let's say the company is going to make $8 Billion for the year (just spit balling here for the math).

Let's say we traded a 20% raise, for the same amount of profit sharing, 20%. Let's say that 20% in money is $1 Billion (again, just picking numbers for the math).

Ok, what just happened to the $8 Billion profit?

Well, now it's not going to be $8 Billion, only $7 Billion, because $1 Billion of it just went to fund our pay raise.

So now, we have cut our profit sharing, TWICE!

We traded away the 20% for the same amount in pay, but now any remaining profit sharing will be calculated on $1 Billion LESS in profits.

Just like when the company gave all the other employees a 14.5% raise, AND cut their profit sharing, those employees PS will actually take a double cut, less profits going forward, and they set the bar for receiving any additional profit sharing much higher.

OK, now step back and look at the big picture. Why does the company want to change/rescind our PS?

It's NOT because they think profits are going to be LESS, is it? Heck no, they know the fleet plan, they've done the math going forward, they have much better projections than anything the ALPA Economic and Financial Analysis guys can come up with.

They see where their emerging markets are, and they are not going to tell us what their long term plans are, but I can bet it's not to lose money, it's to outsource as much of our International flying to as many partially owned JV Partners as possible. The only way you and I will ever benefit from all the upcoming JV growth is through profit sharing. Once we trade that for a one time pay raise, we are screwed 3 years from now when we have to negotiate the next contract.

We keep trading away concessions for pay raises, pretty soon we'll have nothing left to trade!

Then what?

 

The .55 would have been higher, up to 3%(the non cons raise) had our rates been lower. The pay increase was to match AAL/UAL. This would have given us our current rates plus we would have kept the PS. This trade is costing us money today.