It should be an interesting scenario as far as the size of the checks. Does management withhold the portion out of the pool that would have went to the CAL pilots in the event they cave on something? Then if they don't, do they redistribute those funds? I'm guessing they would throw it into the negotiating pile to make it look like they are bringing more money to the table. Unfortunately, CAL pilots have a history of falling for tricks like that. :(

I don't blame CALALPA negotiators for not getting profit sharing past 2009, I blame the pilots who voted "yes" on the whole package. :(

True. Same with on-time bonus checks. What a scam. I was appalled to hear a captain on company frequency in IAH complaining about not having a gate and being in the red zone. Who cares; you'll make more waiting for the gate than any ontime check. :D

He should have more respect for his co-workers and let them do their jobs. Find a place to park out of the way and wait for them to call, which they will--eventually.

Sterile flight deck procedures prohibit pilots from performing any duties below 10,000 feet MSL, except those duties required for the safe operation of the aircraft. Sterile flight deck applies to all ground operations with parking brake released

Sure hope the parking was set when he called. The status of a gate, red zone ops, call scheds, etc, are unsafe comm otherwise.

You've made a very strong case for management to keep on time and profit sharing bonuses. It is achieving the results that management wants - motivating employees to work harder. For employees, a more profitable airline results in higher pay.

I tend to favor bonuses because this SHOULD be an area where management and employees have mutual interests - a profitable on-time airline that customers want to fly. The RLA complicates this equation.

Is Smizek aware of this?:eek: Even though the airline is greatly profitable with an estimated only 20% of synergies completed.....he keeps stone walling...pi$$ing and moaning about no options but a cost neutral contract...or perhaps concessions with the Delta +1 contract...(select sections only). Profit sharing is for a company whose management VALUES it's employees and know that they are imperative to the production, and or delivery of it products or services. With this current crop of management,(it is a revolving door), labor....and specifically pilots, are a fu#&ing nuisance.
The RLA, as out dated as it is.....exist to protect from the likes of our current management. I wonder how often the very topic of the RLA comes up between Gary Kelly and the SWA pilots? :rolleyes:

The profit sharing pool is divided up as if all employee groups below a certain director level are eligible to receive it. Should any employee group (i.e. unionized contract group in other words) not be eligible to receive it, the money for that group is backed out of the pool and the remainder distributed normally. No employee will have their share inflated by another group's lack of participation (non-voluntary) in the plan.

That has been the way it has worked in the past and was even part of some Q & A before. Fewer employees in the eligible pool doe not increase any other employee's check amount.

That is not to say the company won't try to hold profit sharing over our heads like they did with the CAL FA's late last year on TA1 or this year on TA2.

I've already told the union that profit sharing should not be a negotiable item. If the company believes employees contribute to the operation AND the company believes in sharing profits AND we make a profit even if we were to have the richest union contracts in the world, then all employees should get it. Period. End of story. Everyone gets profit sharing when we make a profit and no one gets it when we don't. Because if a company is making profits even with high pay, then obviously the employees and, dare I say it?, management must be doing something right to make the operation successful.

Interesting comment. You don't blame the union that ASKED the pilots to vote yes, but blame the pilots who voted the way the union wanted. How much sense does that make? :confused:

I don't vote the way anyone asks me. That goes for work and politics. I gets the facts and make my own decision. I blame the "yes" voters 100%. I blame the union 0%. Anyone who does is most likely a yes voter (shifting the blame to avoid guilt). How stupid is it to blindly follow and vote on anything? Oh yea, I guess we all know the answer to that now. Next time, read the CBA, think and decide for yourself.

Excellent advice.

I'm always amused with media focus on government and elected officials as the source of our collective troubles. In a mostly "direct elect" republic democracy, the source of our "trouble" is us in the voting booth.