forgot to bid

In the first sentence of my response I figured a 0.8% difference as equal. So yes, 10% from that side of the ledger to 10% to that side of the ledger = 8 tenths of 1% or $1000 over $100,000.

In the second part I wanted to ask about reducing PS greater than the guaranteed rate and see how one feels about that. Because I believe if you said to RA would be more inclined to pay a base plus PS then to pay a base that's equal to that number. So in order to get the base up, you'll have to make a sacrifice somewhere since they're taking a risk that they can afford a higher base.

So, how about a 10% reduction in PS for a 7% raise vs say 0% raise and 20% PS? Which is better? It's a subjective call when you don't know what the profits will be, so which iyho is better?

D Mantooth

Great question. Everyone will have a different answer based on their risk tolerance.

I'm (while not young at all anymore!) still on the younger side of the pilot group, and am bullish on the company's short-term future. I might be more risk-tolerant than someone with fewer years left to retirement.

If it's a one for one trade, I think it should be a no-brainer.

I guess it's all academic until we find out if profit sharing was touched at all.

I posted the question because I was curious how it became a sacred cow, when a few short years ago it was ridiculed. I also find it ironic that many of the same guys who helped negotiate it are now viewed as incompetent boobs!

I for one am glad we got it, hope we keep the upside, hope we monetize a percentage of it, and am grateful to the people who had the foresight to get it. I'm also glad that many of them still work on our behalf.

Cue the "you're a stupid Alpa-holic" chorus!

Cogf16

I could accept a lower PS % if it was IN ADDITION TO rumored rates, not subtracted from those rates. Lets say the 9/6/3/3 is accurate. Now its hard to say anything definitive without seeing all the other sections, and frankly, I'm not in the mood to give the company much! But just looking at the rates, 9/6/3/3 without touching PS would pass me and the group(again barring any onerous concessions) I think. However, I get where the co. wants to reduce PS. Fine, any reductions would be offset by increased rates on a one for one basis, or better yet, used to increase the DC or 415C payments.

IMO, 9/6/3/3 or less and LESS PS is dead on arrival. I bet that's what they're mulling over now, in addition to sick leave, scope and scheduling concessions. DOA

forgot to bid

I agree. It will be about risk tolerance.

If it was an even swap for rates and pay with a percentage still there, I don't think it'd be getting this kind of attention. I think the issue is if guaranteed is assigned more value where a W2 is lower with changes than without given the same profit.

horrido27

As an outsider looking in.. want to add something to your point-
A few months back I posted a question on your Delta Thread (and on AA's) concerning how international LOE (OE to you guys) was manned.
On the United side, the company was trying to change how they staffed those trips (with regards to PBS/fourth pilot).

Long story short- many of us saw more than the usual amount of trips (pairings/id's) removed from our "available trip pool" when PBS is trying to build us our schedules.

The EWR-HNL 76-4 trips in one of the senior cream of the crop trips by us. 3 day worth over 21hrs of WB pay. Easy flying.. gone about 50 hrs, Home early.
It' usual for some of those trips to have IOE on them. The usual thing was to just buy the FO position after he was awarded it and shortly before they knew they would need the trip for IOE. Same goes for any of the other international trips.

Now, here's the problem-
IF that trip were to be held back from PBS, you wouldn't know it because you don't know which LCA Captains are going to bid which ones!
So number 1 FO bid Mon-Wed HNL trips. Then PBS runs and a LCA gets the Mon-Wed trips. Now said trip is no longer in the pool and #1 FO can't get what he bid!
Training doesn't have the names of individuals to plug into those trips a month(+) out.. so it sits there with no FO.

That affects not only number 1 FO, but EVERYONE below him (or her)!

With us hiring a little under 100 a month.. plus a lot of seat swapping going on within the pilot group also.. the amount of IOE (OE) is huge.
If you don't stay 2 steps ahead of contract negotiations, you end up with items that have a major (negative) effect on manpower and QoL.

Good luck guys. Looking forward to seeing what the TA really looks like. I'll add this last point. When we (UAL/CAL) had our "TA"... there were all kind of rumors abound.
We too (the rank and file/message board groupies) were constantly told to "not believe the rumors.. wait and see before you judge".
Well, I agree that you should "wait and see before voting NO".. but, the [negative] rumors almost ALL turned out to be true. And by then, it was too late~

Always
Motch

PS> If your MEC turns it down, will you still 'see' what it was? Seems like you will if your MEC meeting tomorrow is open, and the TA is being discussed.

D Mantooth

I would be firmly against that as well.

WARNING: what is to follow is total conjecture.

Let's, however, say that our negotiators arrived at a total compensation package. After the agreement, management said, "Hey, all that profit sharing doesn't look all that great to Wall Street. How about we convert a bit of it to increased pay rates on a dollar-to-dollar basis, and keep the upside intact?"

I'd buy off on that in a New York minute. I can't think of any reason not to.

That's why IF profit sharing is touched, I'm going to look closely at it before setting my hair on fire and jumping off a bridge!

RonRicco

Agreed Splash, that is why I said rumored, but for the sake of argument, let's assume the basic rumor is true.

Say there is a certain percentage of trips that are "blocked" for flying with LCA and say it is a busy month. Let's go with 69%. LCAs bid their schedules and now those trips are not allowed to be bid by FOs. Now the number 1 FO is not allowed to bid a trip which that his seniority can hold, so he is now bidding a trip that the number 2 guy may have wanted. That will ripple down the list and probably reduce the amount of line holders.

Again, assuming the trip pull rumor is true, the FO going in has no idea what trip may or may not be available when he submits his bid. Maybe somebody has thought through that, but that doesn't seem fair either. I can't imagine there being a restriction after the fact on the LCA's for swapping and dropping (up until a certain point) but If they tried to designate trips earlier locking them into their schedule, I could see a mass exodus from the program.

Being objective here, I would be ok with a remedy that prevents double or triple dipping, but based on the rumored fix, this is unacceptable to me... And I am not a FO. (Never know what the future brings)

All that said, this is all speculation and could be way off base and I refuse to get spooled up like some over at CC until there are hard facts to evaluate.

ERflyer

I would prefer that too in a perfect world. Pay raise then monetization. But that's not what's happened the previous two times. At a minimum they should clearly state what the net gain is after any swaps.

We will see tomorrow.

Seggy

Do you really think folks on here are naive to think that just because a consultant says something they speak the truth about a subject?

RockyBoy

We had the exact same thing happen during our last contract C2012. We were told all the rumors were put out by management to rile us up.....have patience.....wait for the TA.......MEC will put it out....settle down.......etc.

All the rumors were right last time....I'm sure they are close this time around as well.