Details on Delta TA
#3441
Your view doesn't matter anymore than mine. What matters is that you can't cost out profit sharing when developing the future cost of a contract.
And if they try to use profit sharing in their total cost figure, they will run afoul of the NMB.
All correct except your addition of profit sharing.
You're describing a non-union airline which is to allow management and shareholders to determine the size of the pie, and then we employees fight amongst ourselves for the allocation of that pie. A union is supposed to define the size of the pie via the maximum allowable under the law. That definition is always far more than the company wants to give. If we're just accepting what management is already willing to give, we're just like any non-union shop.
Carl
And if they try to use profit sharing in their total cost figure, they will run afoul of the NMB.
All correct except your addition of profit sharing.
You're describing a non-union airline which is to allow management and shareholders to determine the size of the pie, and then we employees fight amongst ourselves for the allocation of that pie. A union is supposed to define the size of the pie via the maximum allowable under the law. That definition is always far more than the company wants to give. If we're just accepting what management is already willing to give, we're just like any non-union shop.
Carl
dude stop. you have plenty of good points to make but you arent right on this one.
profit sharing is easy for the company to cost, its ten cents out of every dollar of profit upto 2.5b and 20 cents of every dollar above that
#3442
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: A330 First Officer
Posts: 1,465
so in your world the company cant cost out the jeta for the next quarter or year because the future price is unknowable, get real.
dude stop. you have plenty of good points to make but you arent right on this one.
profit sharing is easy for the company to cost, its ten cents out of every dollar of profit upto 2.5b and 20 cents of every dollar above that
dude stop. you have plenty of good points to make but you arent right on this one.
profit sharing is easy for the company to cost, its ten cents out of every dollar of profit upto 2.5b and 20 cents of every dollar above that
#3443
And here is the answer to your question.
bender, tool, basically all the"new but I was lurking and I only have 59 posts" members all tie back to this guy.
Which one of you sleuths can tell us:
A. His name
B. His title
C. How much he makes
D. His prior work and educational history.
#3444
Management has a total cost figure in mind that they will draw the line at when costing our contract. We intuitively understand that and I refer to it as the pie. How we allocate the slices is to be determined by the negotiating committee and the MEC.
Specifically, what is responsible management from the board's and shareholders perspective. That ultimately will determine the size of the pie.
Specifically, what is responsible management from the board's and shareholders perspective. That ultimately will determine the size of the pie.
Carl
#3445
Banned
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 147
So lets take a back of the envelope example. Lets say that I view industry best fixed pay rate plus 5% as the upper bound of responsible corporate governance. Further, lets say that in deriving this bound management has considered future exposure of half our current PS. Finally, lets embrace the flawed idea that PS can never go down and represent a loss in earning power. In doing so the value of future PS is defined and will be the same or higher than last year for the duration of the contract.
OK. Management using those parameters would be willing to pay as high as a 12% increase to current fixed rates. What would that look like? Lets say for simplicity that AA is the industry leader at our rate plus 7%. In reality we exceeded that pay rate last year by 9% or so due to PS. Nonetheless, we would need 7% to reach par, plus 5% in fixed pay rate increase, and then we add half of the current profit sharing or roughly 8% for a total of 20% premium over AA.
So our pay rates would like like 12,3,3 for a 3 year contract or 4,8,3,3 for a 3 year contract done 6 months early like last time. There you go, hourly compensation ends up at AA plus 5% plus PS = 13%
The math isn't difficult. What is difficult from our perspective is determining what is a reasonable upper bound that a board can sign off on. The negotiating process is designed to find the bound. Also, determining the value of profit sharing is not an intuitive process. It requires economic and risk analysis. Suffice to say a lot of math is involved. Of course there is also a purely speculative element as well. After all, a hedge is a bet.
The company will want to value PS at something less than par, rightfully IMO claiming that the risk is rising for them as we reach the peak of the economic cycle. We will take the opposite position and say we want a premium to par because past history shows accelerating profitability (a disingenuous position that ignores the business cycle, but necessary for the negotiation). We will find the value somewhere during the negotiation. That value is valid on that day, but inevitably will change when the future unfolds.
I suggest when we toss around pay rates we should start with what we believe is possible from the viewpoint of responsible corporate governance. We can all come up with numbers we like, but they are meaningless if they cannot be achieved in the real world. Then we work backwards to determine what annual pay raises would look like, with or without profit sharing.
Again, it may be instructive to talk with anyone who manages a publicly held business to determine what is possible when figuring out labor costs. Study the history of our business and the history of other labor intensive businesses. "It ain't my problem to find the money" isn't sufficient analysis to justify something that cannot happen.
OK. Management using those parameters would be willing to pay as high as a 12% increase to current fixed rates. What would that look like? Lets say for simplicity that AA is the industry leader at our rate plus 7%. In reality we exceeded that pay rate last year by 9% or so due to PS. Nonetheless, we would need 7% to reach par, plus 5% in fixed pay rate increase, and then we add half of the current profit sharing or roughly 8% for a total of 20% premium over AA.
So our pay rates would like like 12,3,3 for a 3 year contract or 4,8,3,3 for a 3 year contract done 6 months early like last time. There you go, hourly compensation ends up at AA plus 5% plus PS = 13%
The math isn't difficult. What is difficult from our perspective is determining what is a reasonable upper bound that a board can sign off on. The negotiating process is designed to find the bound. Also, determining the value of profit sharing is not an intuitive process. It requires economic and risk analysis. Suffice to say a lot of math is involved. Of course there is also a purely speculative element as well. After all, a hedge is a bet.
The company will want to value PS at something less than par, rightfully IMO claiming that the risk is rising for them as we reach the peak of the economic cycle. We will take the opposite position and say we want a premium to par because past history shows accelerating profitability (a disingenuous position that ignores the business cycle, but necessary for the negotiation). We will find the value somewhere during the negotiation. That value is valid on that day, but inevitably will change when the future unfolds.
I suggest when we toss around pay rates we should start with what we believe is possible from the viewpoint of responsible corporate governance. We can all come up with numbers we like, but they are meaningless if they cannot be achieved in the real world. Then we work backwards to determine what annual pay raises would look like, with or without profit sharing.
Again, it may be instructive to talk with anyone who manages a publicly held business to determine what is possible when figuring out labor costs. Study the history of our business and the history of other labor intensive businesses. "It ain't my problem to find the money" isn't sufficient analysis to justify something that cannot happen.
#3446
Ahhhhhh.
And here is the answer to your question.
bender, tool, basically all the"new but I was lurking and I only have 59 posts" members all tie back to this guy.
Which one of you sleuths can tell us:
A. His name
B. His title
C. How much he makes
D. His prior work and educational history.
And here is the answer to your question.
bender, tool, basically all the"new but I was lurking and I only have 59 posts" members all tie back to this guy.
Which one of you sleuths can tell us:
A. His name
B. His title
C. How much he makes
D. His prior work and educational history.
Carl
#3447
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,184
It means this is what ST is unwittingly describing in his post below:
If you agree to the premise that management decides the size of the pie, you remove the need for collective bargaining and the entire Section 6 process. That's what non-union airlines do. Section 6 is about attempting to legally achieve a much larger pie than management was initially willing to define.
Carl
If you agree to the premise that management decides the size of the pie, you remove the need for collective bargaining and the entire Section 6 process. That's what non-union airlines do. Section 6 is about attempting to legally achieve a much larger pie than management was initially willing to define.
Carl
Our problem is the non union groups that make up the rest of the company and management's need to cater to them. I know it's not OUR problem on one hand, but on the other it very much is.
The real big problem that we now have is what is going on at Allegiant. If you think for one second that that doesn't affect us, you are completely out to lunch.
#3448
Carl
#3449
Banned
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 147
Carl,
Thanks for making my point about costing.
You are letting emotion to interfere with your higher order reasoning processes. Of course management ultimately determines the upper bound for their largest cost expenditure. That is why they are there. If we determined that for them we wouldn't be in business very long. I want to make $500 an hour! If I could get us all to agree with that figure, according to you we would establish that rate. This assuming the NMB would sign off on such a thing, which they wouldn't. They are cognizant of how business works.
We may move the upper bound to a point, that is what negotiations are for. Believe it or not, there is a limit where management cannot go past. They determine that limit and negotiate to stay as far under it as possible.
Thanks for making my point about costing.
You are letting emotion to interfere with your higher order reasoning processes. Of course management ultimately determines the upper bound for their largest cost expenditure. That is why they are there. If we determined that for them we wouldn't be in business very long. I want to make $500 an hour! If I could get us all to agree with that figure, according to you we would establish that rate. This assuming the NMB would sign off on such a thing, which they wouldn't. They are cognizant of how business works.
We may move the upper bound to a point, that is what negotiations are for. Believe it or not, there is a limit where management cannot go past. They determine that limit and negotiate to stay as far under it as possible.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post