|
Originally Posted by BobZ
(Post 2169574)
No, we would be far better off perpetually stuck in the EITC 'quagmire'.......I believe that was accomplished quite nicely on the b-scale. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 2169570)
You need to factor in the reduction in profit sharing also generated by the non cons getting raises when we don't. The 18% awarded last year will make a big dent in our checks come Feb. Another Elephant in the room will be tax issues when we finally get a TA.
|
Originally Posted by OldFlyGuy
(Post 2169595)
I think I can sum this up: we don't want to surrender 5% of very likely profit sharing for 5% of additional pay and call it a "raise." It's not a raise its a zero.
1. "…very likely…" is an opinion based upon what we can predict right now. The value of PS in an unprofitable year is zero. If we insist on being skeptical about our management's motives and skills, then doesn't it make sense to be skeptical about their ability to generate profits every year? And I'm not including geo-political threats or catastrophic events as part of that general skepticism…just our confidence in them. 2. I like your characterization of swapping PS for pay rates one-for-one! It's NOT a raise. It's a conversion, and I think we should always consider it as one. Your comment makes it sound as if there's no financial benefit to converting a once-a-year payout - with its attendant carve-outs in the formula - for a stream of paycheck increases throughout the year that are NOT subject to carve-outs in their formula. So I don't think we can call it a "zero". It's not a raise, but it's not a zero. Put another way, if pilots were given an option in the PWA to convert PS for pay rates (dollar-for-dollar) on an individual basis for the duration of the next contract, do you think anyone would do it? Other than me? |
Originally Posted by Karnak
(Post 2169627)
I agree with you, but would like to add some clarification to a couple of your assumptions:
1. "…very likely…" is an opinion based upon what we can predict right now. The value of PS in an unprofitable year is zero. If we insist on being skeptical about our management's motives and skills, then doesn't it make sense to be skeptical about their ability to generate profits every year? And I'm not including geo-political threats or catastrophic events as part of that general skepticism…just our confidence in them. 2. I like your characterization of swapping PS for pay rates one-for-one! It's NOT a raise. It's a conversion, and I think we should always consider it as one. Your comment makes it sound as if there's no financial benefit to converting a once-a-year payout - with its attendant carve-outs in the formula - for a stream of paycheck increases throughout the year that are NOT subject to carve-outs in their formula. So I don't think we can call it a "zero". It's not a raise, but it's not a zero. Put another way, if pilots were given an option in the PWA to convert PS for pay rates (dollar-for-dollar) on an individual basis for the duration of the next contract, do you think anyone would do it? Other than me? |
Originally Posted by capncrunch
(Post 2169606)
Wow, you really had to stretch for this horse$hit.
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 2169642)
I have noticed you never use facts in any rebuttal. Please explain why their raise will not cause a reduction in our PS.
|
Originally Posted by Karnak
(Post 2169627)
I agree with you, but would like to add some clarification to a couple of your assumptions:
1. "…very likely…" is an opinion based upon what we can predict right now. The value of PS in an unprofitable year is zero. If we insist on being skeptical about our management's motives and skills, then doesn't it make sense to be skeptical about their ability to generate profits every year? And I'm not including geo-political threats or catastrophic events as part of that general skepticism…just our confidence in them. 2. I like your characterization of swapping PS for pay rates one-for-one! It's NOT a raise. It's a conversion, and I think we should always consider it as one. Your comment makes it sound as if there's no financial benefit to converting a once-a-year payout - with its attendant carve-outs in the formula - for a stream of paycheck increases throughout the year that are NOT subject to carve-outs in their formula. So I don't think we can call it a "zero". It's not a raise, but it's not a zero. Put another way, if pilots were given an option in the PWA to convert PS for pay rates (dollar-for-dollar) on an individual basis for the duration of the next contract, do you think anyone would do it? Other than me? Not a good deal. We are losing real dollars everyday because of this. |
Originally Posted by Hank Kingsley
(Post 2169649)
Fact, our CFO just bought a million bucks of Delta stock.
In practical terms it will reduce our PS payment for this year just over 2%. |
Originally Posted by Hank Kingsley
(Post 2169649)
Fact, our CFO just bought a million bucks of Delta stock.
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 2169654)
And oranges are related to snakes how? The fact is the PS pool is divided between the pilots and no cons by each sides relative share of income. If their side of the income goes up our portion of the profit sharing pool goes down. The noncons share is roughly ⅔ of the employee costs at Delta. That has gone up for this year by 18%. The real beauty behind what the company did was they don't even have to pay that shift in PS money to the Noncons. They slapped them with a new program however our share will be calculated using the contractual formula as if they were still in the original program. There were several threads on this and others besides me verified the facts.
In practical terms it will reduce our PS payment for this year just over 2%. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:03 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands