Originally Posted by Gen6

If these questions can't be answered I would strongly consider a no vote on a contract with a MB.


-What would have been the value of the pension at retirement under the pay rates we worked at vs the value of frozen pension, PBGC, BK Claim, merger money, profit sharing, and DC invested at 6%?

-What was the lifetime earnings of those potentially receiving the MB adjusted for inflation vs those who don't receive the MB?

-What is the cost of the MB relative to the cost of the whole contract?


I know the first question has been asked several times and the answer is "it's too complicated and we don't have the data". I would argue we are competent at polling and costing so we should be able to do this. Get a representative sample of say 1000 pilots from the group that would receive the benefit to provide the info. Seems like a small amount of work if you want a 6 figure check. Telling the rest of the pilot group that they have more time compound is an insult. As we all know another lost decade in the market is always possible. Also don't forget that hopefully you don't die the day you retire and you live another 20 years. So your money does have time.


The second question comes forward because many of the defenses of the MB are based on being fair to everyone. However, the MB argument can't be made in a vacuum. Every group except for the newest hires can say they were affected by the early 2000's. The group getting the MB also worked under C2K where FO's pay adjusted for inflation made what a captain makes today. They also benefited from a 5 year extension of the retirement age and early retirements. They are also senior enough to dump their schedule and GS. The people behind this group may have been furloughed for 5 years with zero pay, stagnated for 5 years in their seat and are too junior to hold weekends or GS regularly. The industry wasn't fair to anyone and if you are going to argue a benefit targeted at one group then make it a fair comparison. Tell someone that isn't getting the MB why its fair. The argument can't be based on what you hypothetically lost. The only objective data point can be how much you made. Saying its too complicated to figure out is not a defense. If the benefit is that important to someone and they have a compelling case then they will figure it out and make it.


The last question is what is the cost of the benefit. My guess is over a half billion dollars. What do we give up for that? What if we were offered over 150,000 IVD's instead or improved reroute pay. It's not an insignificant amount of money. It will come at the expense of something else.


The precedent alone is bad. The MB is divisive at face value. Will we negotiate carve outs for targeted groups in the future based on market performance? That being said I am still willing to listen but I have not heard a compelling, objective argument on why I should support this.