Bluedriver

Not gonna argue with that.
​​​​

BananaHammock

That would probably go over like a fart in church but asking the same lines...

At my former regional and also I believe Frontier has similar - anything over 75 hrs automatically pays 125% anything over 85 hours automatically pays 150% etc etc would force them into more efficiency or way least get you more pay for working harder though on a monthly basis versus a per trip basis

Either way getting rid of DTZ is non negotiable.

Justabusdriver1

I know wording wise 100% and 200% typically means above guarantee and idk if I care that it’s above (sure that would be a huge benefit and a big plus). But if any flight either scheduled or actually operates between 1am and say 6am, block not duty it should just be worth 200% straight credit. If Redeye jungle turns actually paid 10hrs straight pay there would be a lot less of them in open time and a lot more might be open to the idea of picking them up. At premium for 20hrs it would absolutely be worth doing those

Noisecanceller

And now the United AIP is out. Why in the world were we surveying the group knowing American and United were close to deals. Having the United AIP I guarantee would change a lot of answers for those that were just taking the contract comparison document as gospel.

BTW United got the similar profit sharing language to delta now. Not going to be too funny when narrow body captains are collecting $100k profit sharing checks everywhere but here.

Justabusdriver1

counter profit sharing with revenue sharing. Shouldn’t have to rely on the company being financially responsible to share in the money pilots generate

Bluedriver

It was just the first survey. There will be more. Pay rates are usually some of the last things finalized I believe, so we will all have plenty of time to adjust our expectations. For me, it might not matter much, as my survey response was already well above Delta, as it should be. But if United goes above Delta by much, and Delta's snap up goes above that, the we can all readjust on the following surveys.

Agree on the profit sharing, everyone in our peer set already has profit sharing, and those plans are only getting better. In many cases it will be an extra two MONTHS of pay in some years, possibly more.

Excargodog

^^^THIS^^^. Just like fuel costs and landing fees and sales taxes are considered just a cost of doing business, revenue sharing should be too. A good accountant can finagle depreciation schedules, equipment purchases, etc., etc., to erase profits on paper to avoid profit sharing. Revenue is revenue and the JCBA ought to require the pilots get a fixed percentage of it.

Bluedriver

Major airline CBA's specify that the profit used in the profit sharing payout is the same numbers they report to shareholders. So using accounting gimmicks to hide profits from employees will also be hiding profits from shareholders. This can work in the short term, but never works in the long term as it would harm share prices, harm investors, and also harm executive compensation, as the bulk of executive comp is based on stock price performance...

If it were so simple, or even reasonably possible, Delta would be doing what you say and avoiding paying gigantic profit sharing checks to the employees.

Excargodog

Talk to ANY CPA. Or take an accounting course. Or for that matter, just look at nonprofit organizations.

Kaiser-Permanente hospitals have $93 BILLION a year in revenue but NEVER make a profit. Yet their CEO pulls in $16 million a year - twice the salary of the Blue Cross CEO. There are PLENTY of ways to hide profit, including amortization schedules and equipment buys that will support share prices while decreasing book profit.

You keep fighting this suggestion. What downside do you see?

Bluedriver

Kaiser-Permanente is both a PRIVATE organisation, and a non-profit. And revenue has never guaranteed profit, ever. So saying an organization should have a lot of REPORTED profit simply because it has a lot of revenue is not reality, especially with a private organization, or a non-profit.

In the case of a PUBLIC owned company, with public shareholders, they can use these gimmicks in the short run, but it would never work in the long run. And those gimmicks would reduce current year profit, but would only INCREASE future year profits by making the business stronger long term. The simple fact is the shareholders would never stand for continued underreporting of profits. It would harm their share value, and they don't like that. And public company executives get 80% or more of their annual compensation from stock grants and other stock performance incentives. So the executives themselves would repulse at the idea of sabotaging the company's reported profits.

I've explained this all before.

Would I like revenue sharing? Of course I would. We smurfs have been fighting to get our profit sharing BACK for YEARS. We have been so far met with an Iron Curtain of illogical resistance, especially when EVERY AIRLINE IN OUR PEERSET have it. And that peer set is company agreed upon.

Profit sharing aligns the financial interests of the employee with that of the company. In other words, we want the company to be successful/profitable and will make decisions and undergo actions that will help that mutual financial success. Yet, the company has said it's a "non-starter" and "non-negotiable" in every negotiations/MOU/LOA/contract extension undertaken in recent years. In other words, we can't even get them to TALK about an industry STANDARD contract provision for airlines at the JetBlue level of the industry. AND... profit sharing is only paid during years where the company is successful and profitable.

On the other hand, you want to get revenue sharing, something that is found nowhere in the industry, and something the company would have to pay when years are financially good, but also years that are financially catastrophic. And you want to attain this from the management I described above!?!?!

Yes, revenue sharing sounds great. And it's a perfectly fine ask. But if you think it's achievable, I think you are on drugs or should not hold a medical certificate.

And frankly I want profit sharing (it's a non-starter for me) and many other industry leading pay and QOL provisions. Those "other" items are more important to me than the distinction between profit sharing and revenue sharing.



​​​​​