9 September Chairman's letter
09-11-2016, 05:40 PM
#101
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Originally Posted by GivemeVSP
How would not trading PS for pay rates have affected the 3.B.4 raises we got last year?
Hint...we'd have the exact same pay rates today as we would have had with no PS exchange in C12.
Hint...we'd have the exact same pay rates today as we would have had with no PS exchange in C12.
And yet they want to do it again. Only this time, they want to "trade" an undetermined, unlimited amount that management alone can decide, by reducing our share as they increase theirs.
Officer's eat first clause.
That is a poison pill and will not get through MEMRAT.
09-11-2016, 05:40 PM
#102
Straight QOL, homie
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Posts: 4,202
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
Haven't read past this post yet so I don't know if this had been asked...
From the above, I gather you want to be released (I'm good with that, me too). My question for you (all the absolute no voters based on AIPs etc) is, you disagree with Dalpa and won't support the current trend. How will you vote if a strike ballot it's called? Half of the battle is getting as close to 100% yes vote as possible. Will you honor a strike?
It sure seems to me like the answer to both those is no. This is a recipe for disaster.
Denny
From the above, I gather you want to be released (I'm good with that, me too). My question for you (all the absolute no voters based on AIPs etc) is, you disagree with Dalpa and won't support the current trend. How will you vote if a strike ballot it's called? Half of the battle is getting as close to 100% yes vote as possible. Will you honor a strike?
It sure seems to me like the answer to both those is no. This is a recipe for disaster.
Denny
Step 2: pull whatever crap table position we have, and toss a restorative position on the table (NMB is no longer calling the shots)
Step 3: Lace up the gloves
If we're going to get jerked around and have our time wasted, I hear what you're saying: let's make it worth our while.
09-11-2016, 06:00 PM
#103
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 335
Originally Posted by IPAs
You sure are persistent. Everytime I come to this forum you are swimming upstream with everyone calling you wrong. I am in agreement with a past poster that you must be part of management. It's Sunday the rest of the Monday thru Friday crowd is off. Maybe you should take a break and join them
09-11-2016, 06:02 PM
#104
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,049
Originally Posted by D Mantooth
Ok, payrates. It's going to be better, but feel free to call it a concession if you like.
I'll put that on the concession side.
I'll put that on the concession side.
Your concession will be temporary, mine will be permanent.
09-11-2016, 07:01 PM
#106
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,870
Originally Posted by D Mantooth
Yes! Of course we did! We bought low, sold high, and converted a set dollar amount of "maybe" money for a higher amount of definitely money. It's an absolute no-brainer for anyone who can operate a calculator.
Which is why few here can apparently comprehend it.
Which is why few here can apparently comprehend it.
Mantooth,
You seem to be really keen on the idea of trading PS. I voted yes for C-2012 despite the PS trade which I did not rally like but was living to live with it.
What guys are saying is that we would have had the same exact pay rate today even if we did not trade for PS because of the 3.B.4.
Surely you can see this? Feel free to argue that we would not have achieved a deal in 2012 without the PS trade but the fact is, and it is a fact, that we received a .55% pay raise via the 3.B.4 last year which would have simply been larger if we didn't trade PS in C-2012. We would have the full unchanged PS and our current rates.
Again - I will point out that this is a simplification since we can never know what pay-rates UAL and AMR would have had without our C-2012 but you are the one who simply keeps bringing up the math without regard to second and third order effects. Well that is the math.
Scoop
09-11-2016, 07:24 PM
#107
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Posts: 95
Originally Posted by D Mantooth
So you're suggesting we'd have had an easier time getting up to industry leading rates had we started from a lower rate? Or we'll have an easier time next cycle? That's simply not logical.
You also seem to be suggesting that management, we, the NMB, and the market don't consider PS as a part of our compensation. That's just not realistic.
Do you think nobody notices the huge checks that get deposited in February?
The answer to your question about what effect it'll have on negotiations: None. Absolutely zero.
All it would do is make some money guaranteed instead of at-risk, and have it delivered earlier.
But again, it's a moot point. The pilots have decided they'd rather gamble sure money rather than accept the exact same amount they might possibly win if everything goes right.
You also seem to be suggesting that management, we, the NMB, and the market don't consider PS as a part of our compensation. That's just not realistic.
Do you think nobody notices the huge checks that get deposited in February?
The answer to your question about what effect it'll have on negotiations: None. Absolutely zero.
All it would do is make some money guaranteed instead of at-risk, and have it delivered earlier.
But again, it's a moot point. The pilots have decided they'd rather gamble sure money rather than accept the exact same amount they might possibly win if everything goes right.
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm telling you that profit sharing that is converted to payrates is lost the next bargaining cycle. Just as our profit sharing from C2012 that we foolishly converted to pay is now gone forever. We do not get that money subtracted from our payrates for comparison purposes when we negotiate our next contract.
I am also saying that profit sharing is absolutely not added to payrates for payrate comparison purposes. It is variable compensation and not added into the payrate comparison. Our PS plan may be compared to other's PS plans but there is no way to predict when you may or may not get PS and certainly not how much anyone may or may not get. Any payrate comparison that includes some imaginary PS figure added in is misleading and dishonest.
Sure, PS is part of our total compensation it is variable and more importantly, unpredictable. When it when it is converted to pay rates that changes and now it is compared to our peers pay rates. Look at it this way. If we gave up all of our profit sharing for an extra 20% in payrates but airline X,Y and Z still have PS. The next contract cycle we are going to be negotiating for payrates while being compared to our peers who still have their PS intact. Do you think we are going to get a credit for the part of our rates that came from buying our PS? Absolutely not. As proof, that is exactly what is happening now. No credit is given to the PS we gave up for part of our raise last time around. Hourly rates are compared to hourly rates. That PS was flushed down the toilet.
09-12-2016, 06:19 AM
#110
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Posts: 260
Originally Posted by Scoop
Mantooth,
You seem to be really keen on the idea of trading PS. I voted yes for C-2012 despite the PS trade which I did not rally like but was living to live with it.
What guys are saying is that we would have had the same exact pay rate today even if we did not trade for PS because of the 3.B.4.
Surely you can see this? Feel free to argue that we would not have achieved a deal in 2012 without the PS trade but the fact is, and it is a fact, that we received a .55% pay raise via the 3.B.4 last year which would have simply been larger if we didn't trade PS in C-2012. We would have the full unchanged PS and our current rates.
Again - I will point out that this is a simplification since we can never know what pay-rates UAL and AMR would have had without our C-2012 but you are the one who simply keeps bringing up the math without regard to second and third order effects. Well that is the math.
Scoop
You seem to be really keen on the idea of trading PS. I voted yes for C-2012 despite the PS trade which I did not rally like but was living to live with it.
What guys are saying is that we would have had the same exact pay rate today even if we did not trade for PS because of the 3.B.4.
Surely you can see this? Feel free to argue that we would not have achieved a deal in 2012 without the PS trade but the fact is, and it is a fact, that we received a .55% pay raise via the 3.B.4 last year which would have simply been larger if we didn't trade PS in C-2012. We would have the full unchanged PS and our current rates.
Again - I will point out that this is a simplification since we can never know what pay-rates UAL and AMR would have had without our C-2012 but you are the one who simply keeps bringing up the math without regard to second and third order effects. Well that is the math.
Scoop
Yes. 3b4 exists and might have helped. Might. It certainly wouldn't help in the event of the company losing money. I'll take the same amount (or more in the case of c12) of money guaranteed.
Also, as you state, I highly doubt that UAL or AMR would have gotten those rates absent our C12. Further, if management knew giving the non-cons a raise meant they'd trigger 3b4, I highly doubt they'd have been so free about it.
Your point is well-made, and I appreciate it. I just disagree that it would have happened in the way you and the other poster who mentioned it surmised.
Again, I'll take the guarantee instead of the "hope" every time. My memory is not so short as to believe that profits last forever.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
