Karnak

My understanding is that the "impact on the profitability" (not the same as "profit and loss") of the refinery is not easy to read in the 10K reports.

The operation at the refinery the airline owns lost $50m, but the airline's savings in fuel is only expressed as an average cost per gallon. Delta was something like 8-cents better than peers for the year. Part of that was a better-than-peers tax payout for JetA because you don't pay tax on fuel you give to yourself. That benefit was not expressed as a separate item in the reports.

Even when the price of oil plunges, the amount of tax on a gallon of JetA does not. The tax benefit of giving it to ourselves is real, and not required to be reported.

Sink r8

I like much of what you wrote in that post, but you have to admit that the part quoted is pretty funny. Ignore them, but believe me that profits are going up and up!

I think the undeniable fact is that the future value of the PS is speculative. Personally, I've thought Delta was a good investment for several years. I don't base that at all on what we employees are being told, but based on what the owners are being told via earning calls and guidance, and even that, I usually discount. Overall, I want upside protection, but I'm also reducing my exposure to the stock. For the same reasons, it might be OK to have a little less exposure to the company's performance via PS, if it implies a trade in addition to rate increases, not a self-funded "raise".

Thing is, I have absolutely no idea how you could prove the result was one or the other.

BenderRodriguez

ding ding ding we have a winner.

Carl Spackler

Don't know if WE do, but YOU certainly do. You were one of the strongest trumpeters of management's claims that the 717's weren't coming anyway, and the 50 seaters will just get re-engined if we voted NO, and we needed to say yes to C2012 because the window of opportunity was so short, and...

Carl

Sink r8

If by "we" you mean the pilot group and the union, the answer is: usually. To the point of frequently quoting them.

Sink r8

Simulposting. The new word of the day.

Scoop

Sink,


You are exactly correct - if we reduce PS during section 6 we have no idea how much we are "paying" for our raise.

You would have to monetize PS separate from section 6.

For instance this past year we received about 16% from PS. So if we got a 25 raise contingent upon eliminating PS it would actually be a 9% raise.

Would 9% in this negotiating environment even be considered a single in the ever present baseball analogy? Maybe a fielders choice with a RBI for good measure.

Granted - it would be "less" at risk than PS but not totally without risk which should be totally obvious to all since we are still not even up to C-2000 rates.

Scoop

Karnak

Nope. It means we lead in Profit Sharing. No other airline has a formula for payout as good as ours, and "pensionable" means we get an extra 15% on TOP on the Profit Sharing payout. Nobody has that added 15%, even if their formulas were as good as ours.

Nice try! At 6.5 TFP for the day, it means a SWA pilot qualifies for the conditional maximum 5:39 ADG exactly never. SWA is working under an old contract, and the ADG conversion was not modified after FAR117.

Got me! Crew Augmentation is indeed a "portion" of all the language in our contract that can be called Work Rules. It's an important portion, and one that has a significant impact on staffing and QOL for long haul pilots, but golly…it's on a "portion". it's also an area where we clearly lead the industry.

I understand how you'd want to diminish that. First World problems.

Karnak

Nope. Not me. You're going to have to show me when/where I've ever said that. The 717's were not a factor in my vote. I did like the window of opportunity, but you're really straining your credibility by claiming I was "one of the stingiest trumpeters". That's Baghdad Bob stuff right there.

Sink r8

Kinda hard to identify trumpeters on an anonymous board anyway, isn't it?