Dharma,

In a perfect world that would be correct - if and only if the management compensation came off of the bottom line vice employee PS. Since neither qualifier exists I will have to disagree with your premise.

Do you remember that DAL management, in secret until they were exposed, set up BK proof pensions for management at the exact time they were planning the demise of the other employee groups pensions.

I would rather not rely on BOD or management "goodwill," ethics or morals as a mechanism for governing our PWA - a quick review of history reveals it would be imprudent to say the least.

If they were serious about this whole issue it would have to strictly defined with a % of profit sharing ceiling. But we already negotiated and agreed to a PS system - one that can not be easily manipulated, try our best to keep it.

Finally I think we are debating a moot point - I don't see this clause surviving and have heard from Reps that think it is a throwaway clause.

Scoop

It will cost us between 4% and 6%. The ALPA attorneys in the failed TA miscalculated this by a mile.

Ask your reps.

This is insane.

Why are we making concessions?

Why are we making concessions in return for nothing but empty promises.

Repeat of the failed TA.

The entire problem is that the Company, and by complicity, our own Union, has us chasing so many time-bomb Easter Egg grenades thrown behind our line that we have little time to look for the significant straight-forward gains.


Quit distracting us with baffling BS, keep what we started with and just get some simple, significant gains.

This clause as a .75% pay hit in the rejected TA. The pensionable portion of PS is 3-4% depending on the projected payout this year. IE the Pensionable portion of PS is 4X more costly. Its a non starter unless its converted to straight DC to get us to 19.5-20% total DC on our wages.

The definition is to align the definition with the GAPP definition.

There are ways to get what we want. a max escalator per year of 1-2% with a max cap. The bonus go down, thats the new limit and then they can only grow it 1-2% a year.

Keep your eye on the ball. One is much more costly than the other.

It probably will be a moot point, and like you I wouldn't put much faith in anything except for the greed of activist shareholders. Ultimately, owners are controllers.

You do realized we have an ownership stake. We are in the first position to collect on profits paid for not by money or represented in shares, but paid for in reductions in contractual obligations of pay, retirements, and other savings to the company. We already paid for that. We bought our profit sharing, it was not given.

I've never heard about this. Do you have any more details? This would be a valuable lesson to those who weren't around.for BK.

.
gzsg : Do you mean 4%-6% of the profit sharing check or 4%-6% of total annual pay?

How did you calculate this?

Thanks in advance.
.

Not sure about DAL, but the APFA at AA uncovered such a plot and unseated the pres.

I dont remember the exact details. But it was a bankruptcy proof offshore pension deal to retain top talent. Leo got 8 million and it went lower from there down to, IIRC vickie mascara got $2M. The most ridiculous one was $6M for the nitwit that went to United...fmr marine cant recall his name. Within a year all but 1 were gone.