Profit sharing is a form of gambling over having direct wages that are concrete and guaranteed. It's a form of "deferred" or "possible" compensation that is only triggered IF the company earns a profit and triggers the payout. Bills aren't paid through possibilities and you also can't apply for a loan for anything based on informing the lender "Well I get PS at the end of the year and I THINK it's going to be this much"
Do I THINK the airlines are going to be profitable for many years to come? YES! But we also know looking at this Ebola Crapola, Russia invading the Ukraine and a softening of the economies in Europe, Japan and China. Not to mention issues with Venezuela and now Argentina that global issues do put a crimp on profits and can even possibly grind them to a complete halt.
Touting up the benefits of possibilities over absolutes is irresponsible and quite frankly foolish economically. Your personal finances aren't something that should be thrown to a Roulette wheel no matter how good the odds.
Doug Parker has said he's not a fan of PS in contracts but he also said if that's really what the Unions want then OK. It was the APFA that ultimately "CHOSE" to forgo it for direct wages and benefits to their contract and I agree with that decision and hope my negotiators do too.
I want my company to keep it's profits. They can use it to pay down debt, make capital improvements and reward shareholders (Which I'm also one) Profits should be used to strengthen the foundation of the company and have assets for the next rainy day that always comes. If they do this and the foundation is strong then there is more money in the future till for me to ask for more in the next round of negotiations.
I played the Lotto yesterday for the first time in maybe 6 months. $3.00 Quick Pick. Guess how I did? But playing the Lotto again was my "CHOICE"
what you don't seem to want to admit is that it is very possible for an airline to be profitable on a sustained basis.
WN has been profitable year after year after year.
WN has faced an enormous amount of volatility in the US economy and managed to profitable.
The difference between DL and the rest of the legacy carriers including AA is that DL has decided they will be profitable on a sustained basis, something no US legacy carrier has done anywhere close to what WN has done.
but just because DL flies across the oceans doesn't mean that they cannot practice the same discipline to remain profitable - just like what WN has done.
AA very well may not be anywhere near as profitable on a sustained basis as DL. The mere fact that DL is spending billions of dollars less on fleet renewal and yet DL is growing faster than AA and DL's costs are going up less says that the notion that fancy new planes are necessary is simply not accurate.
DL quite simply is not going to fly routes which don't make money on a sustained basis when they operate.
UA is just now getting around to making some of the tough decisions that DL has made which involves cutting routes and closing hubs. AA has put its toe in the water with seasonal European cuts but for the most part is replacing that with more flying elsewhere.
Quite frankly, DL is far more confident of its ability to be profitable, its employees believe it, and they are willing to accept the "risk" of higher compensation knowing the bottom could indeed fall out - but with very good mgmt., the company can adapt and the employees don't have to pay the price for mgmt. stupidity which is the way the US legacy carriers have operated.
AA people very well might choose to not want profit sharing but they will not make the same amount of money as their peers at DL who work for a company that has figured out to remove the risk from the business which has cost legacy airline employees in the past. WN is proof that it is possible for employees to watch their compensation grow despite the challenges; DL can do the same whether AA can or not.
