Thread: Third Rail

  #8  
NotOldNotYoung , 07-25-2023 12:36 PM
Line Holder
NotOldNotYoung
Line Holder
close
  • Joined APC
    Sep 2018
  • Posts:
    90
Quote: Excellent post. Reasonable tone and reasonable description of the facts at hand. Not meant to offend. Meant to express an opinion, and perhaps persuade & educate. Thank you.

One solution may be to ensure “Choice For Everyone”

If all the retirement options are truly of equal value, then restricting anyone to a particular plan is unnecessary. The failed TA provided choice, except for future hires. That implied the plan was of a lessor value - especially if a future pilot was not hired at a young age.

The TA met a huge company goal - cap & sunset the A plan. And it actually gave scheduling & QOL concessions TOO. That was shocking to many.

Clearly Pay Rates & Scope were issues too.

The next set of negotiations will need to adequately address ALL of these concerns, but perhaps only marginally. New, candid, transparent surveying will be critical.

In Transparency, Integrity and Unity (for Everyone),
DLax
The retirement options were not of equal value or cost to the company. Raising the A plan was the expensive part. The 11% MBCBP is the cheaper part. While it may yield a larger retirement for those not yet hired or younger pilots hired, it did not offset the declining value if you chose to freeze your A plan at $290k FAE and current YOS. But if you have >10 years to go and stay with A plan, its value depreciates. Those in the middle were left with 2 mediocre choices. In the end the company saves as more end up on 11% contribution plan. Those savings and lower pay rates paid for A plan bump that favors those with <5 years to retire. If you shift money away from the A plan to get pay rates, you get more No votes from older crowd to offset yes votes from younger crowd. We have an inherent demographic divide that will be a challenge to reconcile.
Reply