.
Yes. So what? If the Company loses money on hedges, the IRS allows those losses as a legitimate business expense.
.
So are you somehow trying to opine that the Company pre-plans hedging losses so as to cut profits and thus employee profit sharing payouts?
.
So WHAT IS YOUR POINT IN THE ABOVE, QUOTED POST?
.

 

I don't understand what you're saying. Did the language change, or not? And if so, did it change with the old grievance settlement, or the TA?

 

Check,

Absolutely nothing has changed in regards to PS. The PWA language is the same. The grievance was withdrawn without prejudice so absolutely no change to what our contractual language means.

Scoop

 

Lost on hedges but paid MUCH LESS for fuel and hence, was a winner. hedging is insurance. If you lose money on hedges, that means the price of gas is lower than expected. About a year ago, I caught some of J Graham's talk in the ATL pilot lounge. Re: fuel, he said that every penny change in fuel prices is 40 million a year difference. he said we were paying a little over a dollar less for fuel than same time, previous year. Over 4 Billion in savings. Now I now it would be great if we didn't hedge and just "rolled the dice" on spot prices, but you guys would crucify mgmt. if that backfired. And be honest, NO ONE could have predicted Oils massive drop 2 years ago or even it continued low prices.

Again, it's insurance for volatility and negative geopolitical events. Let it go.

 

Important thing to remember is the economy is slowing. This is talked about in a recent IMF report. If the TA gets voted down the environment for further negotiations can detroriate and then we will be lucky to keep what we have. I think management will keep to their positions of no full retro if this negotiation continues. There are concessions in the new TA but they are minor and I don't think they sour the whole deal. Nothing in the laungage for scope points to a scale back of wide body flying just a clarification of the current JV stance.

 

When you say NO ONE, are you excluding those on the other side of our hedges? I'm just not ready to "let it go" when we're talking $Billions in profit losses. That kind of money justifies some deep-dive inquiries, whether you think you already have the answers or not.

 

Where did the company announce its position on retro? You realize that their decrees don't determine what we will ratify, right?

 

The guy who purchased those hedges just resigned from Delta completely yesterday. Happy?

 

Over all our fuel costs were lower for the year however they would have been much lower had we not hedged. We paid considerably more then our competition not to mention around a billion we dumped into the refinery.

 

A third-world Marxist dictator confiscated Delta's bank account.

That is pretty much the textbook definition of a "loss due to an extra-ordinary event".

Management told ALPA to stick our contract language where the sun don't shine and called that event an "ordinary expense".

ALPA would have won that grievance easily. Management pulled that accounting trick for the sole purpose of screwing the pilots out of some money. The same reason they gave all the non-contract employees raises in December 2015 instead of the traditional January 1st.

I would like to know the effect of dropping that grievance. In the future there will certainly be other accounting charges that all other corporations have traditionally recognized as non-recurring, one time or extra-ordinary. Is management now free to deduct all of those from the pilot's profit sharing?
If so, I'd call that a change to our profit sharing program.