Originally Posted by PolicyWonk

I am very impressed by the accumulated knowledge of Not much Work and lots of time to Play and Post.

He/she/it/they is very well connected to information sources. Especially so for someone who is relatively recent on the scene, as I once was.

I happen to know how much pilots who are retiring under this contract are losing per year, because of the decision by some block reps of larger blocks to do a roll call vote rather than allow the new pilots to go onto a sole B-plan, albeit at a higher percentage than the old-timers. What do your information sources tell you?

As a purported relatively new hire, do you agree with their decision? Depending on your assumptions, or knowledge, pertaining to the longevity of our pilot group, which way would you have voted if you were on the MEC at the time?

And since you have access to a remarkable amount of information, what is our average lifespan after we retire? And how should that inform our per diem rates? Stated differently, is there any relationship between the number of hours we fly, and our longevity? Should our per diem be based on the price of a meal, or how much we decrease our life span for having exposed ourselves to the increased radiation of the cosmos while at altitude flying to that meal?

I will gain nothing from an increase in retirement benefits or per diem rates or any other proviso in the next contract. But I think the per diem rates should be doubled at a bare minimum. What say you? And why and how do you arrive at your conclusion? If you choose the path of least resistance, we, the rickshaw wallahs will not benefit one iota. But if you increase hourly pay rates, solely, magically, ALPA becomes a beneficiary also. Should we allow ALPA a cut of our per diem so they are encouraged to fight for it at long last? Should we allow them a cut of our retirement so they fight for it at last?

If you are too busy playing to answer this for a while, I understand. I'll return to the rickshaw stand now.