Details on Delta TA
#3111
Bullet point from All Pilot's Memo: 2015 - A Look Ahead.
This is the first time I've seen anything about negotiations from the company. I think it's interesting given conventional wisdom that the company should stall when employees have leverage. I think it gives us a little leverage if it's not lip service...which we won't know until until negotiations get started.
This is the first time I've seen anything about negotiations from the company. I think it's interesting given conventional wisdom that the company should stall when employees have leverage. I think it gives us a little leverage if it's not lip service...which we won't know until until negotiations get started.
#3112
#3114
You gave up finite profit sharing for a finite pay raise on a 1:1 or better basis while you kept the infinite portion of the profit sharing. That means in good years you make more and in bad years you make more. I don't see how that was a bad deal. I see no reason to give up any of the profit sharing this time around. It's an apples and oranges comparison.
The only place I've seen that the company wants profit sharing in exchange for a quick contract - which doesn't even make sense, BTW - is on this board. I've seen the company repeatedly tout the merits of profit sharing and just recently say they want a quick contract.
We have no way of knowing how seriously the company is about valuing labor peace until negotiations start. If the company's opener drops profit sharing and isn't a significant contractual improvement (overall, they will have items the want for efficiency purposes) it will be clear they don't want an early contract and they don't value labor peace. Until that point we can only speculate.
The only place I've seen that the company wants profit sharing in exchange for a quick contract - which doesn't even make sense, BTW - is on this board. I've seen the company repeatedly tout the merits of profit sharing and just recently say they want a quick contract.
We have no way of knowing how seriously the company is about valuing labor peace until negotiations start. If the company's opener drops profit sharing and isn't a significant contractual improvement (overall, they will have items the want for efficiency purposes) it will be clear they don't want an early contract and they don't value labor peace. Until that point we can only speculate.
#3116
I don't think anyone here would dispute that an early C15 hinges on us selling our profit sharing. the company needs relief from the wall street jackals that are howling about "too much profit sharing," and they need that relief yesterday.
I think we we can all agree that there will be no early contract unless we give up profit sharing.
so let's not plan on an early contract.
I think we we can all agree that there will be no early contract unless we give up profit sharing.
so let's not plan on an early contract.
Where is the evidence that the company even wants to drop profit sharing? The only place I've seen it is here, which I enjoy as much as anyone, but anonymous message board posters aren't the best sources for real information. They are, however, great sources for rampant speculation presented as fact.
#3117
Straight QOL, homie
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Record-Shattering Profit Facilitator
Posts: 4,202
OF COURSE the company wants profit sharing. At least the lions' share. RA wants to be "investment grade." Wall Street is going bat**** about our PS. RA has hit the glass ceiling until he can ditch our PS.
I suppose he might leave a few crumbs just so he can poke Ameican in the eye about their lack of profit sharing. But there will be no early contract without gutting PS and significantly funding our own improvements.
Even the dalpa hard-liners have gone nordo on the notion that PS is untouchable.
You are saying "king me." RA is saying "checkmate ."
#3118
We have no way of knowing how seriously the company is about valuing labor peace until negotiations start. If the company's opener drops profit sharing and isn't a significant contractual improvement (overall, they will have items the want for efficiency purposes) it will be clear they don't want an early contract and they don't value labor peace. Until that point we can only speculate.
Doing that is a recent phenomenon that has been brought about by popular demand. The whole exercise is more about public relations than about negotiations.
There's the actual negotiations and then there's the public "openers".
The two things are nearly unrelated these days.
If either side decides to publish something you can be sure it will be a meaningless document. If you're expecting to see detailed negotiating positions you are going to be deeply disappointed.
ie => DALPA will open for "substantial improvements to pay and benefits".
They're not going to publish numbers.
#3119
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Just a quick comment about "openers" being made public.
Doing that is a recent phenomenon that has been brought about by popular demand. The whole exercise is more about public relations than about negotiations.
There's the actual negotiations and then there's the public "openers".
The two things are nearly unrelated these days.
If either side decides to publish something you can be sure it will be a meaningless document. If you're expecting to see detailed negotiating positions you are going to be deeply disappointed.
ie => DALPA will open for "substantial improvements to pay and benefits".
They're not going to publish numbers.
Doing that is a recent phenomenon that has been brought about by popular demand. The whole exercise is more about public relations than about negotiations.
There's the actual negotiations and then there's the public "openers".
The two things are nearly unrelated these days.
If either side decides to publish something you can be sure it will be a meaningless document. If you're expecting to see detailed negotiating positions you are going to be deeply disappointed.
ie => DALPA will open for "substantial improvements to pay and benefits".
They're not going to publish numbers.
#3120
Just a quick comment about "openers" being made public.
Doing that is a recent phenomenon that has been brought about by popular demand. The whole exercise is more about public relations than about negotiations.
There's the actual negotiations and then there's the public "openers".
The two things are nearly unrelated these days.
If either side decides to publish something you can be sure it will be a meaningless document. If you're expecting to see detailed negotiating positions you are going to be deeply disappointed.
ie => DALPA will open for "substantial improvements to pay and benefits".
They're not going to publish numbers.
Doing that is a recent phenomenon that has been brought about by popular demand. The whole exercise is more about public relations than about negotiations.
There's the actual negotiations and then there's the public "openers".
The two things are nearly unrelated these days.
If either side decides to publish something you can be sure it will be a meaningless document. If you're expecting to see detailed negotiating positions you are going to be deeply disappointed.
ie => DALPA will open for "substantial improvements to pay and benefits".
They're not going to publish numbers.
There's an argument to be made that releasing detailed openers would increase unity. I supposed the alternative argument is you don't want to see how the sausage is made but I tend to favor transparency. I won't get wrapped around the axle either way.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post