"Crap" would be a subjective thought

My criticism is objective

Simple math

The two 1% B fund bumps will not offset the degraded value of the A fund cap over the 6 years of this contract

It will get even worse in the future

Now, if you won't personally earn above the cap and/or will retire in the next 6 years, your objective, mathematical analysis may clearly be different

It all depends on your time horizon and your FAE compared to the cap

 

By that logic, would you have considered a TA with 1.0% yearly rate increases NOT concessionary?

 

Well, you didn't ask to discuss why I considered the 2015 CBA to be concessionary, you simply declared that nobody could list five parts that are concessionary. I did.


8-in-24

You said, "Even the 8 in 24 Day\night flying change is MORE restrictive than required by the FARs."

I said, "We HAD 8 in 24 for ALL flying, we conceded it for day flying in hopes that we'll get longer layovers for night flying. Don't hold your breath. But relax, if we have a Supplemental segment, 8-in-24 will apply."

If you don't believe we conceded protections regarding 8-in-24, you simply haven't been paying attention, or you're being intentionally dense.

Concede: Definition: surrender or yield (something that one possesses) synonyms: yield, surrender, give up, relinquish, cede, hand over.

Here's what we had, a quote from the 2011 CBA:

§12.C.2.b. (Domestic Block Hour Limitations)After exceeding 8 in 24, rest requirements apply:
§12.C.6.b. (Domestic Rest Provisions) (You quoted this above, but you quoted the old CBA, not the new one)
The above changed in CBA 2015 with the addition of an exception:
(If you look at your copy of the document, the "track changes" version, you may notice the blue or purple underlined text (blue in the electronic pdf version, purple in the hardcopy paper version) that indicates the text is an Insertion (Legend found on inside front cover))
§12.C.2.d. (Domestic Block Hour Limitations) and then the new rest requirements:
§12.C.6.b. (Domestic Rest Provisions)
I highlighted and underlined the new language in the last paragraph. If you don't have the desire or capacity to wade through the Block Hour Limitations to see what we've given up, it should be clear that we've given up Rest Provisions. Old rule -- 17 hours, or operationally reduced to FAR limits. New rule -- 13 hours, reducable to 12 hours.

That is a concession, and you don't need to reference 14 CFR because it's irrelevant. We're talking about the CBA, not the FARs or the FOM. Also, don't confuse rest preceding the flight duty with rest required after the flight duty.


Hub Turn Hotel Rooms

You said, "Is it the elimination of hub turning hotel rooms if there's enough sleep rooms for every single pilot hub turning."

I said, "Giving up hub turn hotel rooms does NOT guarantee 'every single pilot hub turning' gets a sleep room. It only guarantees rooms for pilots with hub turns of greater than 2+30. I wonder who controls those schedules. How long is the typical hub turn in Paris?"

You obviously STILL do not understand the issue. The Company doesn't have to provide HOTEL rooms for ANYBODY doing hub turns of 2+30 or less.

2011 CBA §5.B.:

B. Lodging and Rest Facilities

1. The Company shall provide a pilot a single occupancy hotel room in
the following circumstances:

a. between 2 consecutive flights within a trip containing an
intermediate stop scheduled to exceed 4 hours.
b. at a pilot’s election, if, due to operational circumstances, he
is projected to experience an actual intermediate stop, from
block-in to block-out, that is:

i. in excess of 4 hours; and

ii. more than one hour greater than the originally scheduled
intermediate stop.

There's nothing in there about 2+30. That comes with the 2015 CBA:
2015 CBA §5.B.1.h.:

h. For hotel rooms required under Section 5.B.1.a. and 5.B.1.b. only, if an
intermediate stop, measured from block-in to block-out, is less than 5
hours and the stop occurs during the night or critical duty period (or
during a domestic duty period at the Memphis hub sort facility), the
Company may substitute a sleep room in the hub sort facility for a hotel
room; provided, however, that the Company has sleep rooms available
in the hub sort facility for all pilots transiting the hub sort facility with an
intermediate stop of 2:30 hours or more (from block-in to block-out).

IF there are sufficient sleep rooms for all pilots with an "intermediate stop" of 2:30 hours or more, The Company may substitute a sleep room for a hotel room. That means that if the pilot's hub turn is less than 2:30, he is not guaranteed a sleep room. It does NOT mean The Company has to build more sleep rooms. If there aren't enough sleep rooms to substitute for hotel rooms, they just provide the hotel room.

The fact that they are not required, under these specific conditions, to provide a single occupancy hotel room to a pilot with a hub turn between 4 and 5 hours is a concession.


Oh, no, The Company would never manipulate times to suit them. How many hub turns are 2+35 and could just as easily be 2+29? Who cares, and who cares where they could do it and how many rooms are used in Paris or Gangzhou or anywhere? The point is, it's a benefit we had that we don't have now -- that's a concession.



International Hotel In Lieu Of


I said, "International Hotel in lieu of - GONE. Non-Intercontinental HILO might suffice in some situations, but the benefit lost was a benefit that cost The Company nothing. Nothing. We only lost it as punishment for some people supposedly abusing it."

Not different, it's gone.

You don't know what you're talking about -- you're just spouting the Negotiating Committee's talking points. Changing International to Intercontinental makes a huge difference when the two international locations are on the same continent. Allowing you to use the domestic provisions in that case by renaming the Domestic Provision "Non-Intercontinental" does not provide the same benefit. If they were the same, don't you think they would have been in the same paragraph with a single name to begin with?

Let's say I'm a Hong Kong based pilot with a trip ending with a leg to Incheon and a scheduled deadhead back to Hong Kong. I've got a few days off, so instead of taking the scheduled deadhead back, I'm going to spend a few days in Seoul exploring, taking tours, doing the FDA adventure thing. Under the 2011 CBA I could deviate from the Scheduled Deadhead under 2011 CBA §8.C.3.d. (Hotel):

ii. International

(a) A pilot who deviates from international deadhead
travel may expense up to 3 nights of hotel use in
lieu of the scheduled deadhead ticket. The hotel use
at an international location shall be on consecutive
days in conjunction with the revenue portion at the
beginning or end of a trip.

At the conclusion of the mini-vacation, I could jumpseat back to Hong Kong and live happily ever after.

Now, under 2015 CBA, I can choose from Non-Intercontinental or Intercontinental deadhead -- ICN and HKG are both in Asia, so that's Non-Intercontinental, what used to be "Domestic."
2015 CBA §8.C.3.d. (Hotel)(I can't do strike-through, but I left the deleted verbiage in red.)

I can't use that unless I have consecutive deadheads to the same city, which I did not. I can't use the Intercontinental provision, because it's not. That's a benefit LOST -- a concession. There's no inventive way around it (unless you can designate one of the cities as belonging to a different continent, as we did with Tel Aviv). And it doesn't matter what percentage of pilots it applies to. If it applies to any of us, it applies to all of us.


International Alert Calls

I said, "Speaking of International, no more alert calls for ALL International departures. Canada? Mexico? Caribbean? Nope, sorry, Charlie. What did their cost analysis reveal on savings to The Company by not making a few dozen local phone calls?"

Are you kidding me?!?!? So, the backdoor way to change the CBA is to change the FOM, and then change the CBA to match? We don't change TA verbiage to match the FOM. We negotiate CBA verbiage, and we defend it. The 2011 CBA clearly states, "An international alert call will be given to all pilots on international flights by the departure city ramp." (2011 CBA §12.D.1.g.)

The current FOM says,

11.05 FLIGHT CREW ALERT FOR INTERNATIONAL
FLIGHTS
Sometimes international flights experience lengthy, unforeseen delays (i.e., mechanical
problems, airport curfews, weather, etc.) that result in late departures. It is important that
flight crews not waste valuable duty time by arriving too early at the ramp for a delayed
departure. To avoid this problem, Crew Resource Scheduling (CRS) or Ramp Operations
will notify international flight crews approximately one hour prior to hotel pick-up
time or show-time, as appropriate.

...


Who will receive an Alert Call?
1. Except as noted above, only international or charter operations flights will be alerted,
and the flight number makes the determination except as noted above, crewmembers
on all international flights, including domestic legs, will be alerted during these
trips.

I don't know where you got the idea that alert calls are not currently required at ALL International ramps, but that does not comport with current FOM language (which, by the way, is still in effect).


Tel Aviv included in European Theater, therefore scheduled to Domestic Rules

I said, "Tel Aviv is now considered part of the European theater, so domestic rules will apply. Compound that with the loss of hub turn hotels and no 8-in-24 protection."

Sure, since it doesn't affect kronan, I wouldn't expect you to know or care. Screw your buddy, right? What a selfish attitude. If it's OK to throw one minority under the bus, it must be OK to throw any minority under the bus. If it doesn't affect you, it can't possibly be a concession, right? Yeah, well, we'll see how that works when you're the minority being screwed.


11% Bump in Compensation

You said, "And just me, but getting an immediate 11% bump in compensation while preferring a 12-15% bump doesn't mean it's a concessionary pay raise"

I said, "We did not receive an immediate 11% increase in compensation. If you're talking about the B-Plan bump, that doesn't start until next year."

I didn't list the pay rate increase as a concession -- I simply corrected your math. The pay rate increase as a concession is another conversation that I've already had.

In every case above, we had a benefit, and we no longer have it. We gave it up, ceded it, yielded it, surrendered it, forfeited it, relinquished it, handed it over -- whatever you want to call it. They were all concessions. And I have a much longer list, but you only asked for 5. I'm sorry I interrupted your narrative about nobody being able to list five without changing the conversation. I can hang as long as you'd like.






.

 

An increase is an increase, we got guys whining that any B fund increase is lipstick on a pig because it is only 1+ 1 and guys whining that it is capped. Think how the company and the NC feel when half the crew force says make the b fund bigger and half says screw it is already maxed out.

 

I think the company feels pretty good with what they negotiated --- so good, they asked for an extra year to be tacked on to the standard deal

I think our NC should feel like they better seriously consider the long term affects of the A fund dying a slow death

Is 9% the correct long term number?

Should we be demanding "cash over cap" if we'll eventually be transitioning to a retirement plan that is far less reliant on the A fund.

Remember, the company's main argument against raising the A fund cap was an "accounting concern" of not only the amount required now, but the possibility of market declines they would be responsible to rectify.

So we move to a more hybrid plan

What's the B fund equivalent required?

We simply didn't see any slides or videos on that

Were we too tired?

...in a hurry??

I think the company sure was --- note the title to this thread

 

So I'll put you in the lipstick is nice but add a little rouge to her camp.

Some of us wanted to negotiate retirement, most of us didn't. Therefore, we did not.

 

Since this has somewhat evolved into a retirement thread, let me ask for the sake of academics:

If the compensation limit is $265,000, and the defined contribution limit of $53,000 which includes 401k and DC contributions...is there any reason one could not negotiate a hypothetical 20% B fund? 20% of 265k is $53,000.

Of course this negates the tax benefit of a 401k contribution,and anyone earning over the compensation cap would not see a penny beyond the $53k contribution limit...but wouldn't it be advantageous to greatly reduce (and completely end for many) the requirement for a pilot to self-fund in order to reach the defined contribution limit?

 

Once again, not to derail a good retirement discussion but here's a little nugget of fact more relevant to the threads title...

Straight from the opening of December SIG Notes:

"Peak build typically is one of the most difficult of the year. This year was no exception. The company set BLG targets in a range we have rarely if ever seen."

 

we had no leverage...

 

Has our MEC or NC ever thought we have had leverage?