Originally Posted by Nightflyer

OK, I'll buy that, but there are an awful lot of new hire right seat wide body types who have zero appreciation for those that had to pay their dues in lower paying seats. How do fix that particular attitude? A lot of these same folks say "screw the old guys" every chance they get, and it is getting tiresome. The retirement wasn't fixed for multiple contracts, as it should have been. We are here because our union leadership failed us. How is that my fault? I voted "no" plenty of times, and I am willing to do so again.

The retirement needs to be fixed, pay rates need to be fixed. Perhaps if they did a good job on retirement, people might retire early, and the young guys can advance more quickly. Very unlikely and not something that anyone should count on.

Why do the young guys have to continually say, "screw the old guys", "they should have fixed retirement before" like it is our fault it wasn't fixed? That's all I am trying to say. I have not heard anyone say that. No one is saying "screw the old guys." Maybe that is what you are hearing but that is not what I am hearing. What I am hearing is that there is a feeling that nearly every contractual issue has been ignored in the name of Retirement benefit increases. Most of the "young guys" would like to have seen a more balanced approach to negotiations. There is a denial about the widening gap between Purple and the rest when it comes to work rules and QOL and that isn't being addressed. I think the "young guys" feel like some of their concerns should have been addressed. Scope is maybe issue number 1 that has been totally ignored by this MEC/NC. I think there should be some understanding that the "young guys" want their future protected.

Also, no one seems to give any props to those of us that said in 2015, "don't screw the new hires out of the A plan". NO ONE SEEMS TO CARE THAT WE PROTECTED YOU, AND YET YOU WANT TO THROW US UNDER THE BUS. That is my primary beef with the young guys. My opinion is that every contract stands on it's on. I understand what you are saying and I don't really disagree with you. I think that asking the "young guys" to willingly and perhaps gleefully accept QOL and work rule concessions along with ignoring Scope improvements in the name of increased Retirement benefits is an unrealistic expectation.

Again, they should be more grateful. We could have fixed our retirement, and screwed them, but we didn't. Now they want to screw us. That is a bad attitude on their part, not mine. There was more to the story than, "we forwent retirement fixes just for you to have a retirement." The reality is that having a B-scale has long been problematic for ALPA and others because it starts a divide before the next round of negotiations even begins. The way you describe the history of the retirement plan and forgoing improvements as some charitable give to those coming behind you is not rooted in facts.

Also, not one of the young guys, or the MEC gives a damn about retro-retirement, which should be equally as important as retro pay. Why is that? Because "I've got mine" works both ways. I am personally in favor of retro-retirement and retro-pay for anyone who retired after the amendable date of the contract. I think you have a great idea and I would support that as a negotiated benefit. I would hope that would gain support of a large majority of our pilot group. To this point, this has not been asked for by any ALPA carrier to my knowledge. Let's be the first.

They are setting themselves up for more delays during the next contract negotiations, because they are not being fair to the guys who have retired since the amendable date, but again, no one seems to care. We need leadership that is smart enough to think long term, and that has never happened here, at least as far as the union is concerned. Your definition of fair and mine are not the same. I agree with you about lack of vision.

The company is laughing at us, and it is time for that to stop.