Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
01-29-2015, 11:33 AM
Straight QOL, homie
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Posts: 4,202
With profit sharing progged at 20% or higher for the next couple of years, why fear a slow roll?
The company is pushing for an early deal. They want "labor risk off the table."
The threat of ice time is more leverage...for US.
01-29-2015, 11:39 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 757 Left
Posts: 1,308
Why is it more leverage for us? I don't view PS as a negotiable item so it's not leverage in my opinion. I do however want a lot more in the contract than we have now and the sooner we can get it done the better. Let's make some serious gains while the industry is printing cash.
Last edited by Hawaii50; 01-29-2015 at 11:59 AM.
01-29-2015, 11:46 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
I'm not here to throw insults.
I'm definitely not here to further the conversation.
I'm not even here to make a difference.
I'm not here to learn either.
I'm just here for the gang bang.
01-29-2015, 11:52 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Me and Whiz go back. He's good people.
I know he works hard for the pilots although I'm at a fog at some of the higher level stuff you guys talk about. I'm rather simple and have my little jumbo RJ scope fiefdom and am cool hanging out right there.
The one thing about the internet is you're allowed to go further than you normally would in how you talk to people. I've been insulted and unfortunately been insulting (unless were talking about Alaskan, than that was so deserved.... jk). My strategy is when someone is letting you have it, take the high road for as long as you can not because you'll make them look bad or something like that, but rather because you won't regret what you wrote if you do.
I think I'd like all of you if we were flying a trip. But no offense. I think I would like Timbo the most. Until the violations piled up and I ended up wishing I had purchased loss of license insurance. Damn you Timbo.
Whiz = Shiz. Or so my all knowing autocorrect says.
I know he works hard for the pilots although I'm at a fog at some of the higher level stuff you guys talk about. I'm rather simple and have my little jumbo RJ scope fiefdom and am cool hanging out right there.
The one thing about the internet is you're allowed to go further than you normally would in how you talk to people. I've been insulted and unfortunately been insulting (unless were talking about Alaskan, than that was so deserved.... jk). My strategy is when someone is letting you have it, take the high road for as long as you can not because you'll make them look bad or something like that, but rather because you won't regret what you wrote if you do.
I think I'd like all of you if we were flying a trip. But no offense. I think I would like Timbo the most. Until the violations piled up and I ended up wishing I had purchased loss of license insurance. Damn you Timbo.
Whiz = Shiz. Or so my all knowing autocorrect says.
01-29-2015, 11:56 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
A very cool analogy but some minor points Bar.
The problem is:
A) Look at all that room.
B) Look at that belt.
C) There is no way one punch fixes it. If he had punched it three times and half the lights came on and he looked at it and shrugged and went anyways. That's legit.
The problem is:
A) Look at all that room.
B) Look at that belt.
C) There is no way one punch fixes it. If he had punched it three times and half the lights came on and he looked at it and shrugged and went anyways. That's legit.
01-29-2015, 11:59 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,991
In C12, it was widely reported that the company opened with 0% raises. The company came to ALPA to get an early deal, but offered 0%! Yet ALPA didn't walk out.
If the company brings any sort of insulting nonsense like that this time, after publicly yearning for an early deal, I hope ALPA has the stores (and common sense) to walk away for a good while.
If the company brings any sort of insulting nonsense like that this time, after publicly yearning for an early deal, I hope ALPA has the stores (and common sense) to walk away for a good while.
And stores = stones.
Scoop
01-29-2015, 12:01 PM
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
01-29-2015, 12:28 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
I think it's good we talk about PS because there is one thing to hash out, is which one you think is better:
Option A: $150K flight pay + $30K PS = $180K.
Option B: $180K flight pay.
Some guys will look at A and say that over the life of C2015 the chances are very good that PS is nearly guaranteed money and since its a % of your flight pay the more I fly the more I make- so leave PS alone. We will be profitable for some time, probably profitable even in the next downturn.
Some guys will say that $30K PS is at risk, it isn't guaranteed and it could go away. Give me $180K in hard pay.
Now the bigger question is would someone who prefers Option B be okay with say... $170K hard pay over Option A? Because again it's guaranteed.
To me when I hear "at-risk pay" being bandied about it sounds more like reducing W2 for the sake of having more guaranteed pay. So I cringe.
Personally I'm for Option A because I'll hedge my bet that over the next few years (with RA in charge) we're probably profitable. But it's a bet. I think some guys are probably not willing to make that bet.
Thoughts *****es?
Option A: $150K flight pay + $30K PS = $180K.
Option B: $180K flight pay.
Some guys will look at A and say that over the life of C2015 the chances are very good that PS is nearly guaranteed money and since its a % of your flight pay the more I fly the more I make- so leave PS alone. We will be profitable for some time, probably profitable even in the next downturn.
Some guys will say that $30K PS is at risk, it isn't guaranteed and it could go away. Give me $180K in hard pay.
Now the bigger question is would someone who prefers Option B be okay with say... $170K hard pay over Option A? Because again it's guaranteed.
To me when I hear "at-risk pay" being bandied about it sounds more like reducing W2 for the sake of having more guaranteed pay. So I cringe.
Personally I'm for Option A because I'll hedge my bet that over the next few years (with RA in charge) we're probably profitable. But it's a bet. I think some guys are probably not willing to make that bet.
Thoughts *****es?
Last edited by forgot to bid; 01-29-2015 at 01:08 PM.
01-29-2015, 12:33 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
You got me there. Let's say I hope it's not meaningful that some of us are tripping over themselves to speculate on the company's position, when we haven't even formulated our own. APC right now, is like your wife going to the dealership with you, and frantically whispering about all the things the dealer will ask for, before they even have a chance to say anything. You're not exactly sure how close they're listening, but it just doesn't seem like the best move.
01-29-2015, 12:49 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 757 Left
Posts: 1,308
I think it's good we talk about PS because there is one thing to hash out, is which one you think is better:
Option A: $150K flight pay + $30K PS = $180K.
Option B: $180K flight pay.
Some guys will look at A and say well that over the life of C2015 chances are that PS is guaranteed and its a %, so the more I fly the more I make so leave PS untouched. We will be profitable for some time, probably profitable even in the next downturn.
Some guys will say that $30K PS is at risk, it isn't guaranteed and it could go away. Give me $180K in hard pay.
Now the bigger question is would someone who prefers Option B be okay with say I'm actually fine with $170K hard pay over Option A, because at least it's guaranteed.
To me when I hear "at-risk pay" being bandied about it sounds more like reducing W2 for the sake of having more guaranteed pay.
Personally I'm for Option A, I'll hedge my bet the next few years with RA in charge we're profitable. But it's a bet I think some guys are probably not willing to make.
Thoughts *****es?
Option A: $150K flight pay + $30K PS = $180K.
Option B: $180K flight pay.
Some guys will look at A and say well that over the life of C2015 chances are that PS is guaranteed and its a %, so the more I fly the more I make so leave PS untouched. We will be profitable for some time, probably profitable even in the next downturn.
Some guys will say that $30K PS is at risk, it isn't guaranteed and it could go away. Give me $180K in hard pay.
Now the bigger question is would someone who prefers Option B be okay with say I'm actually fine with $170K hard pay over Option A, because at least it's guaranteed.
To me when I hear "at-risk pay" being bandied about it sounds more like reducing W2 for the sake of having more guaranteed pay.
Personally I'm for Option A, I'll hedge my bet the next few years with RA in charge we're profitable. But it's a bet I think some guys are probably not willing to make.
Thoughts *****es?
That all said, I'm with Sink. I think we're better off trying to hash out how we want to improve our contract rather than guessing what the company wants (CDOs anyone?) and working ourselves up about it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
