Details on Delta TA
04-10-2015, 06:07 AM
#3591
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: A330 First Officer
Posts: 1,465
04-10-2015, 06:13 AM
#3592
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Posts: 429
2nd time. I should have said the individual surveys varied. There is no way that all the surveys said don't change PS. Favored keeping PS for sure. Only change it for a steep penalty for sure. What is the problem here? I don't know that anyone is discussing it except on the forum. OFG
04-10-2015, 08:25 AM
#3593
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 115
Reducing the bottom portion of profit sharing is not a big deal as long as you're aware of what it means.
1 - For example, raising the 10% threshold level can be quantified. If the level is raised and the difference is passed on directly to us what's the problem? You're still getting the same amount of money and it's guaranteed.
2 - The caveat is don't try to con us and call it a raise. It's not. It's just a shift in payment.
3 - If they said here's a 28% pay raise and oh, here's another 5% now that would have been in profit sharing - who cares? Now I'll get the money sooner.
The only problem is people not understanding this and treating the entirety of profit sharing as a sacred cow. It's not. And profit sharing is perishable. Money directly into my paycheck twice a month is a sure thing.
1 - For example, raising the 10% threshold level can be quantified. If the level is raised and the difference is passed on directly to us what's the problem? You're still getting the same amount of money and it's guaranteed.
2 - The caveat is don't try to con us and call it a raise. It's not. It's just a shift in payment.
3 - If they said here's a 28% pay raise and oh, here's another 5% now that would have been in profit sharing - who cares? Now I'll get the money sooner.
The only problem is people not understanding this and treating the entirety of profit sharing as a sacred cow. It's not. And profit sharing is perishable. Money directly into my paycheck twice a month is a sure thing.
04-10-2015, 08:48 AM
#3594
ready for mo money
Joined APC: May 2013
Position: Left Behind
Posts: 84
Reducing the bottom portion of profit sharing is not a big deal as long as you're aware of what it means.
1 - For example, raising the 10% threshold level can be quantified. If the level is raised and the difference is passed on directly to us what's the problem? You're still getting the same amount of money and it's guaranteed.
2 - The caveat is don't try to con us and call it a raise. It's not. It's just a shift in payment.
3 - If they said here's a 28% pay raise and oh, here's another 5% now that would have been in profit sharing - who cares? Now I'll get the money sooner.
The only problem is people not understanding this and treating the entirety of profit sharing as a sacred cow. It's not. And profit sharing is perishable. Money directly into my paycheck twice a month is a sure thing.
1 - For example, raising the 10% threshold level can be quantified. If the level is raised and the difference is passed on directly to us what's the problem? You're still getting the same amount of money and it's guaranteed.
2 - The caveat is don't try to con us and call it a raise. It's not. It's just a shift in payment.
3 - If they said here's a 28% pay raise and oh, here's another 5% now that would have been in profit sharing - who cares? Now I'll get the money sooner.
The only problem is people not understanding this and treating the entirety of profit sharing as a sacred cow. It's not. And profit sharing is perishable. Money directly into my paycheck twice a month is a sure thing.
I think this is the most rational argument about this. Everyone can calculate how much a change to profit sharing is, put it in my paycheck and that's fine with me. I still like having no upper limit on profit sharing because that provides protection when things are good and we are mid contract.
and for the people who say pay rates are variable too, i disagree, a bad decision can make your ps a zero without any help from the outside. it takes a bk judge to vary a pay rate and the bk rules arent as management friendly as the past
04-10-2015, 09:09 AM
#3595
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
Reducing the bottom portion of profit sharing is not a big deal as long as you're aware of what it means.
1 - For example, raising the 10% threshold level can be quantified. If the level is raised and the difference is passed on directly to us what's the problem? You're still getting the same amount of money and it's guaranteed.
2 - The caveat is don't try to con us and call it a raise. It's not. It's just a shift in payment.
3 - If they said here's a 28% pay raise and oh, here's another 5% now that would have been in profit sharing - who cares? Now I'll get the money sooner.
The only problem is people not understanding this and treating the entirety of profit sharing as a sacred cow. It's not. And profit sharing is perishable. Money directly into my paycheck twice a month is a sure thing.
1 - For example, raising the 10% threshold level can be quantified. If the level is raised and the difference is passed on directly to us what's the problem? You're still getting the same amount of money and it's guaranteed.
2 - The caveat is don't try to con us and call it a raise. It's not. It's just a shift in payment.
3 - If they said here's a 28% pay raise and oh, here's another 5% now that would have been in profit sharing - who cares? Now I'll get the money sooner.
The only problem is people not understanding this and treating the entirety of profit sharing as a sacred cow. It's not. And profit sharing is perishable. Money directly into my paycheck twice a month is a sure thing.
One thing about PS that isn't discussed much in the current light is the concessionary "at risk" vulnerability in a massive crisis environment. Maybe we've turned the corner and will never see another 2000-2006 era where the bottom droppes out of revenue and other events hit us hard and we go into BK. But if it ever does happen again, its a lot harder to reduce existing PS than it is to take a huge bite out of pay rates. So in that respect, PS is much less "at risk" than pay table rates in a truly concessionary environment. Hopefully we'll never have to find out.
So far, and despite somewhat justified conjecture/suspicion to the contrary, everything we're hearing from the company and DALPA seem to be in favor of keeping PS as is, at least for this round. We need to watch it, but there's way bigger threats to watch out for in C2015 than PS which looks to be fairly secure in the negotiating room from what we can see. Scope, training freezes, sick leave, block time and other work rule "productivity" increases are far more likely to sneak in this time around than a reduction in PS, which would at least be pretty easy to see.
04-10-2015, 03:50 PM
#3596
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,108
Management has not screwed up the hedge for 2016. Delta will make $9 billion plus. Our new debt goal will be $3 billion or less. Essentially zero.
Without touching profit sharing at all, there is zero excuse for DALPA not attaining 20% plus 1/1/16 in light of our profits.
Reducing profit sharing results in self funding.
After we agree to C2015 if managment wants to discuss reducing profit sharing, I'm not opposed to that.
There is a push here to drive managment's goal of self funding like we did in C2012. FAIL.
04-10-2015, 04:16 PM
#3598
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Carl
04-10-2015, 04:25 PM
#3599
ready for mo money
Joined APC: May 2013
Position: Left Behind
Posts: 84
Here's some logic.
Management has not screwed up the hedge for 2016. Delta will make $9 billion plus. Our new debt goal will be $3 billion or less. Essentially zero.
Without touching profit sharing at all, there is zero excuse for DALPA not attaining 20% plus 1/1/16 in light of our profits.
Reducing profit sharing results in self funding.
After we agree to C2015 if managment wants to discuss reducing profit sharing, I'm not opposed to that.
There is a push here to drive managment's goal of self funding like we did in C2012. FAIL.
Management has not screwed up the hedge for 2016. Delta will make $9 billion plus. Our new debt goal will be $3 billion or less. Essentially zero.
Without touching profit sharing at all, there is zero excuse for DALPA not attaining 20% plus 1/1/16 in light of our profits.
Reducing profit sharing results in self funding.
After we agree to C2015 if managment wants to discuss reducing profit sharing, I'm not opposed to that.
There is a push here to drive managment's goal of self funding like we did in C2012. FAIL.
dont see any evidence that reducing profit sharing is on the agenda, only from you and carl. moving some lower end ps money to the payrates is wise if done clearly and separately from the contract improvements
give me my money now, i dont trust management to not screw up later
04-10-2015, 04:31 PM
#3600
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,919
Actually the contract surveys favoured increasing profit sharing in conjunction with 40% pay increase in date of signing.
Wow, it really is easy to just arbitrarily disperse facts from the contract survey.
Seriously though, please tell us all how you are privy to this information while it is kept from all of us.
Wow, it really is easy to just arbitrarily disperse facts from the contract survey.
Seriously though, please tell us all how you are privy to this information while it is kept from all of us.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
