Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
12-10-2014, 12:12 PM
Doesn't Get Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,598
First off, I didn't say anything about "on a percentage basis". I said our flying could go up as a result of this JV. I don't believe for one minute that Delta does JV flying just to screw the pilots, or shift revenue flights from Delta to the JV partner. They do it to expand their total presence in markets where they can't expand themselves due to slot restrictions (as with LHR) or the market doesn't justify us going it alone (as with other JV partners).
Of course, I wish every passenger in the world was on a Delta jet. But that's not reality, imo.
As for agreeing to it just to increase PS. NO, of course not to that too. But people I trust (MEC, Negotiating Committee, and ALPA E&FA) have all looked at this ten times (probably more like 100 times) as long as you or I, so if they believe it is in our best interests, I defer to them.
Of course, I wish every passenger in the world was on a Delta jet. But that's not reality, imo.
As for agreeing to it just to increase PS. NO, of course not to that too. But people I trust (MEC, Negotiating Committee, and ALPA E&FA) have all looked at this ten times (probably more like 100 times) as long as you or I, so if they believe it is in our best interests, I defer to them.
I don't agree with the last paragraph. I won't defer to anyone who won't give me any information on what I am deferring to them.
12-10-2014, 12:15 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,991
I honestly don't know. I would guess that the countries in question are committed to diversifying away from oil, and this only motivates them more. It does take a little bit of their advantage in having very new, fuel-efficient aircraft.
Also, I don't really understand the nature of their advantage in fuel costs in and of itself. Is it greatest when oil is cheap, or expensive? Do they refine enough in-country? Do they tanker fuel a lot?
Then there are economic conditions: since I don't know how much of an advantage they might have in oil/regulatory/labor, I don't know whether they get squeezed proportionately more than others, when economies are bad throughout the world. They're mostly set-up to carry people between Europe and Asia. If Europe is weak, the Euro is weak, Asia is OK, and their own oil revenues are down, I guess they become very, very eager to tap into our market, where the economy would be better, and the $ is going up.
I'm guessing that with a huge amount of orders, weakening local revenues, the ME carriers got bat-$hit crazy, and flood the trans-Atlantic with seats. They haven't shown any restraint in pushing their regulatory and geographic advantages. Until they really start really bleeding their owners' money, they won't stop. I don't know if we can afford to subsidize our international with healthy domestic, faster than they can subsidize their international with diminishing oil revenues. I doubt our BOD would let us try that game anyway.
What I'm really trying to say is: I have no idea.
Also, I don't really understand the nature of their advantage in fuel costs in and of itself. Is it greatest when oil is cheap, or expensive? Do they refine enough in-country? Do they tanker fuel a lot?
Then there are economic conditions: since I don't know how much of an advantage they might have in oil/regulatory/labor, I don't know whether they get squeezed proportionately more than others, when economies are bad throughout the world. They're mostly set-up to carry people between Europe and Asia. If Europe is weak, the Euro is weak, Asia is OK, and their own oil revenues are down, I guess they become very, very eager to tap into our market, where the economy would be better, and the $ is going up.
I'm guessing that with a huge amount of orders, weakening local revenues, the ME carriers got bat-$hit crazy, and flood the trans-Atlantic with seats. They haven't shown any restraint in pushing their regulatory and geographic advantages. Until they really start really bleeding their owners' money, they won't stop. I don't know if we can afford to subsidize our international with healthy domestic, faster than they can subsidize their international with diminishing oil revenues. I doubt our BOD would let us try that game anyway.
What I'm really trying to say is: I have no idea.
Different OPEC members need different fuel prices to fund their one trick pony economies. Off the top of my head I believe the ones most dependent on high fuel prices to get by are Libya, Venezuela, Iran.
Can you see a trend here? Well run economies? I think not. They want to cut back on production to raise the price. Actually, they want Saudi Arabia to cut back so the price will rise.
These countries can't see past next year and would have oil go to $200/barrel if it was in their power. The Saudi's are more sophisticated and also have the most proven reserves. They know that extended high prices will drive innovation and perhaps accelerate oil alternatives.
With hundreds of years of oil in the ground the Saudi's have a strong interest in keeping as many countries as possible dependent on oil for as long as possible.
Scoop - I read a book
12-10-2014, 12:28 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Left seat of a little plane
Posts: 2,431
Why do I get the impression that if "son of 9/11" happened soon, and our profits vanished, you would be among the first to criticize DALPA for not monetizing our PS?
12-10-2014, 12:34 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Left seat of a little plane
Posts: 2,431
For all those Easybid users out there;
I'm using easy bid to select specific pairings, awarding one pairing per line (2. Award pairings if pairing number XXXX, 3. Award pairings if ...). Easy bid is putting the last pairing I have selected (ie the least preferable) at the top of my bid and the first pairing I bid (the most preferable) at the bottom.
Does this make sense with PBS logic? I thought it treated the top and left as the most preferable, and the bottom and right as the least preferable. Thus it eliminates trips from bottom to top, right to left.
Very, very confused former box hauler. Thanks for your help. kargo
I'm using easy bid to select specific pairings, awarding one pairing per line (2. Award pairings if pairing number XXXX, 3. Award pairings if ...). Easy bid is putting the last pairing I have selected (ie the least preferable) at the top of my bid and the first pairing I bid (the most preferable) at the bottom.
Does this make sense with PBS logic? I thought it treated the top and left as the most preferable, and the bottom and right as the least preferable. Thus it eliminates trips from bottom to top, right to left.
Very, very confused former box hauler. Thanks for your help. kargo
12-10-2014, 01:01 PM
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,991
I don't know why you would have such a low opinion of DAL Pilots to assume that we are all hypocrites but I would recommend giving your fellow pilots the benefit of the doubt. I am on record as acknowledging a risk to not monetizing PS but I am willing to take that risk.
But since you brought it up I already addressed this exact scenario on a post on November 13th. I will cut and paste the whole post below, but in a nutshell what makes you think "pay-rates" would withstand a "Son of 9-11?"
Did our previous contract protect us from 9-11? Did a voluntary 32% pay-cut protect us?
Here is my early post addressing this issue:
We would be fools to consider any change in profit sharing (PS).
First off PS is now part of our contract, status quo, so to speak. Why should we have to put it up for consideration at all?
The company may want to decrease it - who cares?
Even if we did decide to monetize it how could we be sure we are getting a good "rate of return?"
PS is growing very quickly so lets enjoy it. If the company wants to drag out C2016 let them - our PS will help minimize the pain. If fuel continues its slide who knows how high PS can go.
Oh yeah, I forgot about the dreaded "Black Swan" (BS) event. Well we have to stop worrying about something we have no control over.
Besides if we do have a BS event everything would be on the table - it would be an all hands on deck to save the company type of deal.
And we know what that means - Labor takes it in the shorts permanently, management takes a temporary hit but that reaps a windfall for "saving the company."
So in reality, if we decide, foolishly in my opinion, to "monetize" PS in order to inoculate ourselves against a BS event we must realize that it would only help for a very limited range of BS event. Too small an event would not matter, too large an event and we get hit with a Force Majeure anyway.
So maybe, just maybe, we might get a good rate on monetizing our PS. And then maybe, just maybe, we have a BS event of just the right size magnitude that our profits are permanently affected but the company does not hit the Force Majeure range.
I for one would be willing to take my chances on this.
Dont touch PS!
Scoop - My 2 cents
12-10-2014, 01:06 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Left seat of a little plane
Posts: 2,431
I may not agree with you completely, but that was a very honest and thorough answer. Fair enough.
12-10-2014, 01:22 PM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: F-16 & 737 gear actuator
Posts: 95
For someone not yet in the know, how does PS work? Is it stock options, into your 401K, or cash?
12-10-2014, 01:22 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Stay THIRSTY, my friends!
Posts: 1,898
I don't know why you would have such a low opinion of DAL Pilots to assume that we are all hypocrites but I would recommend giving your fellow pilots the benefit of the doubt. I am on record as acknowledging a risk to not monetizing PS but I am willing to take that risk.
But since you brought it up I already addressed this exact scenario on a post on November 13th. I will cut and paste the whole post below, but in a nutshell what makes you think "pay-rates" would withstand a "Son of 9-11?"
Did our previous contract protect us from 9-11? Did a voluntary 32% pay-cut protect us?
Here is my early post addressing this issue:
We would be fools to consider any change in profit sharing (PS).
First off PS is now part of our contract, status quo, so to speak. Why should we have to put it up for consideration at all?
The company may want to decrease it - who cares?
Even if we did decide to monetize it how could we be sure we are getting a good "rate of return?"
PS is growing very quickly so lets enjoy it. If the company wants to drag out C2016 let them - our PS will help minimize the pain. If fuel continues its slide who knows how high PS can go.
Oh yeah, I forgot about the dreaded "Black Swan" (BS) event. Well we have to stop worrying about something we have no control over.
Besides if we do have a BS event everything would be on the table - it would be an all hands on deck to save the company type of deal.
And we know what that means - Labor takes it in the shorts permanently, management takes a temporary hit but that reaps a windfall for "saving the company."
So in reality, if we decide, foolishly in my opinion, to "monetize" PS in order to inoculate ourselves against a BS event we must realize that it would only help for a very limited range of BS event. Too small an event would not matter, too large an event and we get hit with a Force Majeure anyway.
So maybe, just maybe, we might get a good rate on monetizing our PS. And then maybe, just maybe, we have a BS event of just the right size magnitude that our profits are permanently affected but the company does not hit the Force Majeure range.
I for one would be willing to take my chances on this.
Dont touch PS!
Scoop - My 2 cents
But since you brought it up I already addressed this exact scenario on a post on November 13th. I will cut and paste the whole post below, but in a nutshell what makes you think "pay-rates" would withstand a "Son of 9-11?"
Did our previous contract protect us from 9-11? Did a voluntary 32% pay-cut protect us?
Here is my early post addressing this issue:
We would be fools to consider any change in profit sharing (PS).
First off PS is now part of our contract, status quo, so to speak. Why should we have to put it up for consideration at all?
The company may want to decrease it - who cares?
Even if we did decide to monetize it how could we be sure we are getting a good "rate of return?"
PS is growing very quickly so lets enjoy it. If the company wants to drag out C2016 let them - our PS will help minimize the pain. If fuel continues its slide who knows how high PS can go.
Oh yeah, I forgot about the dreaded "Black Swan" (BS) event. Well we have to stop worrying about something we have no control over.
Besides if we do have a BS event everything would be on the table - it would be an all hands on deck to save the company type of deal.
And we know what that means - Labor takes it in the shorts permanently, management takes a temporary hit but that reaps a windfall for "saving the company."
So in reality, if we decide, foolishly in my opinion, to "monetize" PS in order to inoculate ourselves against a BS event we must realize that it would only help for a very limited range of BS event. Too small an event would not matter, too large an event and we get hit with a Force Majeure anyway.
So maybe, just maybe, we might get a good rate on monetizing our PS. And then maybe, just maybe, we have a BS event of just the right size magnitude that our profits are permanently affected but the company does not hit the Force Majeure range.
I for one would be willing to take my chances on this.
Dont touch PS!
Scoop - My 2 cents
All that being said, I'm not hearing cries from the company to cut profit sharing. Right now, we are the envy of the industry, and non-pilot employees are loving the extra cash just as much as we are. It is being touted as part of our corporate culture. Wall St. will have to try a lot harder if they want to take it away.
12-10-2014, 01:27 PM
Doesn't Get Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,598
12-10-2014, 01:33 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,016
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
