Keep in mind we're not in contract negotiations. A no vote just means nothing changes. Atlas may come back with a sweeter deal, or they might not.

Obviously this is to slow attrition and hire more pilots because there's flying to be had that we simply can't do (or existing flying we will lose if we keep losing pilots). Perhaps it's not going to be worth it to seek that flying out if crew costs go too high? Granted that's definitely how management would put it so whether to believe that line of thinking or not I'll leave to the reader.

However one certainty about a no vote is this probably locks in the retirement plan for another year as-is. There simply will not be enough time to ratify a new LOA before the new year and it's highly unlikely it's even possible to retroactively change a 401k plan once the year has begun.


Personally? It's a yes vote for me. This update is not likely to appreciably change attrition but does give the pilots who are here a meaningful bump. I wouldn't be surprised if management offers up more tweaks when they see this does little to stem the flow of pilots with little seniority and long careers ahead.

It also codifies this international pseudo-gateway thing that's always been here but never really defined (and often gave a lot of favor to the prodigal son old timers before all this Aussie nonsense began). Keep in mind a no vote won't stop Atlas from simply restarting offering "XXX gateway" in any way they seem fit.

The only people that lose in a no vote are pilots while they wait with their hands out in the hopes of more money behind Door Number 2.

 

Improvement for who? Unless you're hitting retirement caps you get nothing until 2026. Unless you commute to Australia you get nothing. The company gets to solve their retention and hiring problem by keeping the Australians on property, and recruiting more overseas pilots. Half the seniority list won't get a single improvement.

 

I don't see the downside since the retirement doesn't change anyway. Jan 1st, matching stops and 12% DC starts. So if you put 10% in (with no match) you get 22%. Today, without the LOA, you put in 10% and get 22%. Theres no additional money. You get a full 2% retirement bump in 2025 -- more than a year away. Smoke and mirrors.

The simple fact that we're even voting on this leads me to believe that at least some people on the eBoard think this is either a raw deal or that there is more coming to the table if we reject it.

 

It’s funny to me, if the company came out with a 20% DC and an 80hr MMG pilots would still find reasons to complain and would threaten a “no” vote. It’s a mid-contract improvement, the Aussie issue has no bearing on it. If enough American pilots wanted to fly ACMI the Aussies wouldn’t be an issue. Maybe the work ethic of the average American pilot is more of the underlying issue.

 

^^^ This… Yeah boys, let’s refuse the increase in retirement money because we question their motives, that’ll really show ‘em.
Please…. As a group we are sure great at cutting off our nose to spite our face.

 

you are wrong, the current is 10% matching +2% DC to 22k and the new proposal is 12% DC to 66k.
you are right though that it really doesn’t affect people that make under 225k.

there are other people, other than aussies, that just want to be able to go to work. That live In other places like Europe and Asia. This would help them in the same manner it would help you. However the international gateway has to be under 1250$ an American based pilot has no limit to the gateway price

 

We're voting because the Union knows that most pilots will see through it, but they want to pretend to the Aussies they tried, in order to buy votes.

 

Maybe my math is off? A 100k income with a 10% contribution has a pilot pay in 10k, the company matches 10k and a 2%DC of 2k hits the annual limit of 22k. With a 12%DC that same pilot would hit 22k with that same10k pre-tax contribution from the pilot. Above an income of about 100k per year, the LOA seems to pay out more either by using the higher limit or by reducing the required contribution from the pilot. So it seems to me that 100k per year is the crossover income, not 225k.

Am I missing something?

I=Pre-Tax Income
P=Pilot Contribution
M=Match
D=Company Direct Contribution
R=Total Retirement

Currently: R=P+M+D --> If we assume 10% pilot contribution: R=(0.1(I))+(0.1(I))+(0.02(I)) --> If I =100k: R=22k=10k+10k+2k

LOA: R=P+D --> If we assume 10% pilot contribution: R= (0.1(I))+(.12(I)) --> If I =100k: R=22k=10k+12k

 

This whole argument that "we are giving company a chance to recruit more aussies" is idiotic.

Nothing in the CBA prevents them from opening the XXX gateway with a $1250 cap tomorrow unilaterally. This LOA does not change anything in their ability to do so. So if that is your concern, well, you're just misinformed.

So, we get better retirement, and give nothing back. If people keep voting with their feet, they will come back to offer more.
Easy yes.

 

The current $22.5k annual limit is for your contribution alone, not including the company's. The total contribution limit this year is $66k.

In 2024 it will be $23k that you can contribute. Under the current system, If you made $230k, and contributed 10%, you would put in $23k, the company would match $23k and put in another 2% DC of $4600 for a total company contribution of $27600. Under the proposed system, the company would contribute 12%DC, or $27600, no matter what you contribute. You would still be limited to $23k maximum (Which you should do).