Originally Posted by BobZ (Post 2167680)

Originally Posted by Hawaii50 (Post 2167668)

Profit sharing is also the only way we'll see any monetary benefit from the company's continued huge investments in Virgin, Aeromexico, GOL, CE etc

Originally Posted by JamesBond (Post 2167592)

Please go on with your reason as to why you believe this.

Originally Posted by Timbo (Post 2167608)

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?

Originally Posted by JamesBond (Post 2167688)

This is a very true statement. And probably THE reason why PS needs to be retained. DAL is now a vertically integrated multinational corporation. Salaries and wages are only a fraction of the way to recoup our 'investment'.

This should be a sticky post.

Originally Posted by JamesBond (Post 2167688)

This is a very true statement. And probably THE reason why PS needs to be retained. DAL is now a vertically integrated multinational corporation. Salaries and wages are only a fraction of the way to recoup our 'investment'.

This should be a sticky post.

Originally Posted by Herkflyr (Post 2167595)

I still say a one-for-one PS for pay rate trade is a good deal. More importantly, the math says so.

Originally Posted by Jughead135 (Post 2167814)

Timbo's most excellent breakdown shows why this isn't so--it needs to be better than 1:1 to be a "straight" trade.

That said, a more important reason IMO not to trade PS for pay rates: even if you make the math "work" for the trade, it's only good for one contract cycle--after which the company will have developed amnesia regarding the basis of the pay rates and will insist on comparing only pay rates to other carriers'. That's what folks here are talking about re PS not being "costed" by the NMB; and that's why we've been "losing money" since the amendable date. We're already subject to both of those issues--i.e., have you heard any talk of pay rates going to "UPS + 1 + <what was converted from PS>"? No, because it's gone. Forever.

Let's not repeat that mistake! NO to PS trades!

Originally Posted by Hawaii50 (Post 2167668)

Profit sharing is also the only way we'll see any monetary benefit from the company's continued huge investments in Virgin, Aeromexico, GOL, CE etc