Cart goes here, horse... Oh, wait!
08-19-2016, 12:22 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: A350 Both
Posts: 7,292
Originally Posted by Hank Kingsley
I don't know the strike price of all the options, I think it's available. The stock buy back is characterized as returning money to the investors. In reality, everybody knows it's to benefit management's stock options. Not even a debate.
Buy backs are at an all time high, but on the decline.
Buy backs are at an all time high, but on the decline.
08-19-2016, 12:28 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: LAX ERA
Posts: 3,457
Originally Posted by JamesBond
It is nowhere near the garbage that keeps coming out of his pie hole. But hey, the truth wouldn't be anywhere near as dramatic either.
08-19-2016, 01:09 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,063
Originally Posted by Sink r8
Notenuf just cut and pasted our opener, did he not? So he's saying that we don't get to vote unless we see our opener being TA'd. In other words, no negotiation.
At the other end of the spectrum, some guys are asking for the company opener. Capitulation.
You can spend all day discussing what should be on a TA before a vote is allowed, but that's essentially saying that unless the TA meets my standard, then you don't deserve to vote. So you're arguing to disqualify anyone with a lower threshold, but really, you're also screwing anyone with a higher threshold. Trying to control the right threshold, without having data for the whole group, is trying to artificially push for, or prevent, a vote. That's just plain wrong.
As I understand it, the MEC sees a deal that meets the desires and needs of the group, but the 12 have electrd not to let us get to it.
...
A negotiator and some reps have described the amount of movement being made. They see a deal being entirely attainable that doubles the value of TA1. I want to see what that looks like.
To be clear, I don't like the AIP's much. They nominally address the items that killed TA1, but I never liked some aspects of TA1 either. As a negotiator described it, the approach of the MEC was to start with the failed TA, to minimize negotiation time. If we scrapped them THEN we would not be near a deal now. If we scrap them all now, we're not going to have anything to vote on for a VERY long time. So I think we have to see a whole deal, and we have to decide collectively whether we want to negotiate for several years instead, like FedEx, UPS, and SWA. In the case of SWA, no deal. The others ended up with long delays and long contracts. UPS ends up at <3%/yr. So my philosophy is that begore I agree to that low of a return, to getting into years of nothing, I want us to vote.
The flip side of weak AIP's is supposed to be stronger financial terms. We need to see those, and I think the most compelling way to see them is an AIP over a complete deal.
I think that's called a TA.
We VOTE on those, don't we?
In asking for a vote, I'm trying not to supplant my own judgment over yours. I'm not saying that my specific conditions need to be met before you or anyone else gets to vote. In asking for a vote, I put my faith in the group. If the best we can do now isn't good enough, it will yield a strong vote that way again.
At the other end of the spectrum, some guys are asking for the company opener. Capitulation.
You can spend all day discussing what should be on a TA before a vote is allowed, but that's essentially saying that unless the TA meets my standard, then you don't deserve to vote. So you're arguing to disqualify anyone with a lower threshold, but really, you're also screwing anyone with a higher threshold. Trying to control the right threshold, without having data for the whole group, is trying to artificially push for, or prevent, a vote. That's just plain wrong.
As I understand it, the MEC sees a deal that meets the desires and needs of the group, but the 12 have electrd not to let us get to it.
...
A negotiator and some reps have described the amount of movement being made. They see a deal being entirely attainable that doubles the value of TA1. I want to see what that looks like.
To be clear, I don't like the AIP's much. They nominally address the items that killed TA1, but I never liked some aspects of TA1 either. As a negotiator described it, the approach of the MEC was to start with the failed TA, to minimize negotiation time. If we scrapped them THEN we would not be near a deal now. If we scrap them all now, we're not going to have anything to vote on for a VERY long time. So I think we have to see a whole deal, and we have to decide collectively whether we want to negotiate for several years instead, like FedEx, UPS, and SWA. In the case of SWA, no deal. The others ended up with long delays and long contracts. UPS ends up at <3%/yr. So my philosophy is that begore I agree to that low of a return, to getting into years of nothing, I want us to vote.
The flip side of weak AIP's is supposed to be stronger financial terms. We need to see those, and I think the most compelling way to see them is an AIP over a complete deal.
I think that's called a TA.
We VOTE on those, don't we?
In asking for a vote, I'm trying not to supplant my own judgment over yours. I'm not saying that my specific conditions need to be met before you or anyone else gets to vote. In asking for a vote, I put my faith in the group. If the best we can do now isn't good enough, it will yield a strong vote that way again.
I reposted the re-opener because it is very reasonable in my opinion. It was created before both UAL and UPS had a deal and represents a real step toward restoration. It doesn't address retirement fully but if it were presented, some in the retirement or NO crowd may consider it.
The DB is not an option many will fight long and hard for, some yes. The retirement equivalent is what I am looking for personally. The group is so diverse in retirements, I think time will be required to go down that road if we choose. FNWA has a frozen pension similar to the FDAL non-pilots. The FDAL pilots before 2004 have a PBGC claim while those after only have a DC. To get a DB for everyone may be challenging and a lot of pilots don't want a promise, they want money. I'm not sure how you solve that one.
The rest of the re-opener seems a good compromise between restarting from 0 with the UAL and UPS agreements included and trying to get something done in the current framework. QOL gives and concessions during this time will be a tough sell too. I think not asking for a DB and not asking for QOL gives cancel each other out, hence the reopener. That will be a tough YES for many now anyway.
I think profit sharing and scope are the third rail. Any gives there will derail a deal for sure. As always this is my opinion and you asked for it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
