What's new
By:

Industry-leading TA reached!

I think you meant to say LCC (Low cost Carrier)?  This is not true, SWA is stil the king of LCC's.  What they (media and new airlines) have done was created a third group titled ULCC's (Ultra Low Cost Carriers)  Kelly has stated one time a while back that he would like to take SWA into the ULCC's tittle group, but that would be nearly impossible to do.  That would be like AA, Delta, or UAL reducing enough cost, workers, and future BK's to get their airlines into the LCC's tittle group. 
 
You need to make more clear of your response and the numbers you state, not quite understanding what you are saying about the 2,000 and 6,000 increases...
Click to expand...
except that WN cannot be a ULCC without cutting wages further and they are indeed losing their position as an LCC. Despite your fascination with the WN effect and stimulating traffic, the label LCC is driven by COSTS - and WN's costs are fast approaching those of the legacy carriers.

If WN wasn't afraid of losing its status as an LCC, WN mgmt. wouldn't hesitate to give out healthy pay raises. But they aren't, are they?

 
 
So Parker is not paying any front line group of employees profit sharing according to this article. He would rather pay more in wages up front.
Click to expand...
and we know full well from the examples of AS, DL, and WN that profit sharing absolutely raises the level of compensation above the levels that can be obtained solely on the basis of a set contract.

The whole basis of profit sharing is that it motivates a workforce to "own" their part of the company and do their job to the best of their ability.

AA and its unions can argue all they want that they don't want profit sharing but not only do companies that have profit sharing demonstrate stronger finances than their peers who don't have it but their employees are better compensated on average.

When an employee is vested in the success of their company and are willing to take the risk - even on a much smaller scale than mgmt. - they not only deliver for the company but also share in the rewards more so than those that are content just to receive a paycheck.
 
So it's as easy as "Ask and ye shall receive?"
Click to expand...
DL FA's share of the profit sharing will be far larger than $50M.

DL profit sharing for the whole company last year was over $500M; And this is based on LAST YEAR's profit sharing.

FAs are about 30% of the workforce. Even with the higher pilot salaries (who receive the same percentage of profit sharing as other employees, DL FAs probably receive 20- 25% of the total profit sharing payout.


DL FAs could share more than $300M in profit sharing this year.

AA FA's STILL come up short.
 
So impressive that the "expert" knows better than AA's own management and flight attendant union what is best for AA and its flight attendants.  Classic.
 
They both bought into the notion that profit sharing is a risk they both don't want to pursue.

AA mgmt. pays LESS by not paying out profit sharing and AA employees forego profit sharing.

Both THINK they won but it is the employees at airlines that have profit sharing that are taking home more bacon.
 
The main reason they ditched the PS was because they didn't think it wise to have most employees not covered by it, since most contracts didn't want it.
So as a non-union position not only do I lose profit sharing I will see about a 6% pay cut just in the increased medical premiums and that is not even accounting for more deductible and higher out of pocket expenses.
 
I am truly sorry to hear this, Up.

Profit sharing has contributed mightily to the success of WN employees.

it is very sad (but union predictable) that AA unions don't see the value in profit sharing in increasing compensation above what can be obtained solely via a set scale in a contract.

Given that UA employees also have profit sharing, AA employees will be the only major airline employees that don't have profit sharing - even at a time when the airlines are reporting record profitability and are experiencing greater stability than the industry has known since at least before deregulation.
 
Most f/as, particularly at AA, have had enough of "expected" money, such as profit-sharing, that proved to be a chimera when reckoning time arrived.  I can spend an hourly raise at the grocery store.  Kroger doesn't care a fig about that PS that I was supposed to get.  Even when I worked at Texaco, and being a vertically integrated oil company was like a license to print money, the PS that went to non-executive employees always ended up being less than expected.
 
and with all due respect, if you believe that your contract will be secure if AA won't be profitable, then you (AA employees) didn't learn a thing during the era of BK that swept the industry.

IF AA can't figure out how to make money year in and year out regardless of what the economy is doing and labor can't or won't work mgmt. to achieve that goal, then you most assuredly will be stripped of what you have gained before very many moons.

WN employees are succeeding financially because their company figured out how to ensure the company makes profits year after year after year.

DL came out of BK with the intention of being profitable on a year after year basis - and they have achieved that.

If AA isn't profitable year after year, what your contract says about pay and benefits on paper won't matter one iota in a few years.
 
jimntx said:
Most f/as, particularly at AA, have had enough of "expected" money, such as profit-sharing, that proved to be a chimera when reckoning time arrived.  I can spend an hourly raise at the grocery store.  Kroger doesn't care a fig about that PS that I was supposed to get.  Even when I worked at Texaco, and being a vertically integrated oil company was like a license to print money, the PS that went to non-executive employees always ended up being less than expected.
Click to expand...
^Bingo^

WT makes a great deal about how large the PS payouts will be. And to an extent, he's correct. What he doesn't-and can't- see are all those people on 2/14 who open PS checks that are only a couple of hundred dollars, and the looks on their faces/comments they make. IOW, the people who could use it the most, get the least. Almost w/o exception, the ones I interact with would prefer an increase in their base rate(s) instead.

If dashed expectations have suddenly become a tradable currency, lemme know.

P.S. Hat tip for working "chimera" in there...

 
 
no, Kev.

people who opened checks and received small amounts didn't understanding with holding correctly and didn't bother to change their withholding after their profit sharing checks in order to reduce their withholding on regular checks later in the year.

The government will get their portion one way or the other.

You can choose when you want to pay it - within limits.

If you also got hit with an enormous withholding amount on your PS check, you will receive a refund on your taxes - if you are willing to allow the US government to use your money interest free for a year. Otherwise, you change your withholding to account for the taxes you will pay.

Do you not think that part of the reason profit sharing is announced in January and paid in Feb is so you can make adjustments to your taxes and withholding for the rest of the year?

To argue that you aren't interested in a profit sharing check because you can't be bothered to figure out how to manage your taxes is immaturity and financial mismanagement at the worst.

I truly thought higher of you.

I was clearly mistaken.
 
It's not a withholding issue. It's an income disparity issue. And even if it was, I'd be the wrong guy to bring it up, since I never change my deductions, nor my 401k contribution specifically for PS day.

What has you so fixated on that, anyway?
 
To argue that you aren't interested in a profit sharing check because you can't be bothered to figure out how to manage your taxes is immaturity and financial mismanagement at the worst.
Click to expand...
Could you point to where exactly that argument is being made?
 
"No, no, no ... you don't understand ... I KNOW BETTER THAN YOU the compensation you should receive and risk tolerance you should be comfortable with."
 
for a DL employee to receive a $200 profit sharing check based on last year's earnings and withholding at 50%, they would have had to have annual earnings of about $6000.

There are simply no full-time employees at DL who make anywhere close to a salary that low.

A full-time federal minimum wage employee - how many of those are there at DL? - would have earned just over $1000 in profit sharing for the year.

If withheld at 50%, their check still should have been half of that amount.

But their effective tax FOR THE YEAR at minimum wage salary is likely far less than the amount they had withheld on even that one check - and the chances are very high they do not pay any federal tax.

If the person chose significant contributions to their 401K, have their paycheck garnished (1 in 10 Americans do), or who are not full-time, then yes, the amount would be a lot lower.

So, no, the notion that someone opened a check (or read a pay statement) and received a couple hundred dollars based on average DL salaries - let alone minimum wage - is patently false.

since you don't think your profit sharing is worth much ór can't figure out why yours is so much higher than other people, perhaps some of these AA people who don't have it will more than happily accept yours.

If they aren't interested, I can assure you that I am.

have you booked your winter vacation yet?
 
WorldTraveler said:
There are simply no full-time employees at DL who make anywhere close to a salary that low.
Click to expand...
There is no shortage of Ready Reserves (and seasonal employees) who make low salaries.

Nice qualifier, BTW.


since you don't think your profit sharing is worth much...
Click to expand...
That's mighty assumptive of you.



have you booked your winter vacation yet?
Click to expand...
...And that's just creepy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top