This was a demand from the company because of the extensive use of tactical sickouts by a small minority of pilots.

 

Correct. This was actually a good change. A different DAL Pilot will still get the GS, but it prevents guys from working the system to get green-slips that they would have been illegal for. Finally if the company has no one to fly the GS, the Pilot who called in sick will get the GS - he just can't jump in front of fellow Pilots anymore. Total win for the Pilot group.


Scoop

 

No, I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing that out. The "ready fire aim" response to me was definitely applicable too - made me laugh. I guess this is probably the most sensitive and potentially divisive issue so it's getting some early focus - fair enough.

 

It’s funny that trying to provide all pilots with a roughly equal retirement is divisive. The senior pilots did the right thing for the junior guys during the bankruptcy era by using a targeted DC plan, plusing up all pilots to a 205,000 FAE and providing a minimum length of service credit. Now that the DC contribution has soared and those junior pilots look to have a much better retirement than senior guys they don’t seem to want to reciprocate.

 

My worry with sick stuff is more about the erosion of Qol rules in the company favor. Last contract it was 100 hours, next it will be 75 hours, and in 15 years we may find 100% verification all the time. I truly believe this is a probability.
When will we stop allowing them to change any rules in their favor? I understand that you have to give love to receive love, and I do not in any way begrudge the company their responsibility to cut costs. But I’d rather just match pay to the other majors and not lose one more wok rule while they are making billions(literally).IMO

Edit: I could see trading one set of work rules for another set. sort of a tit for tat. But on our dime, not thiers

 

It's "divisive" because the potential difference between what one TRIES to do and what actually HAPPENS is colossal. If I were 61, I'd be VERY interested in a retirement that could pay me 100k/yr or more starting before the next contract expires... I'd even trade in all of my DC for the next 4 years to make that happen. But since I'm in my forties, I don't trust management, DALPA, bankruptcy courts, arbitrators, mediators, politicians or negotiators to ensure anything like that lasts for two decades (when I retire) ...much less four decades (when I still may be alive).

Older folks simply have much less risk in negotiating for not-in-their-name retirement benefits when many of them will be dead in 10-20 years (roughly 75% chance of living to 80 if they're 60 now). I don't hold anything against them and am certainly not surprised different demographics have different needs and wishes. I don't call that divisive, I call that a difference in priorities.

 

^^^this

Decades of future market/industry risk make it impossible to say that today’s “young” pilots are getting a better deal with DC.

Attempting to make the 2 sides equal (based on a plethora of unprovable assumptions) is begging for each side to retract to their corner, and puts us right where the company wants us: divided.

The only way I see widespread support for an alternative plan is:

1. It is available to ALL pilots. Attempting to pick favored, or most damaged segments, of the pilot group is bound for continued discord like we’re seeing in this thread’s small microcosm or the overall group

And/Or

2. Provide 2 options. Option A is a straight increase of DC, while option B could be some hybrid annuity monster (or whatever it is that you guys are so hung up on getting). Everyone gets to pick which door they want to walk through, and forever hold their peas. Basically put your money where your mouth is ala DPMA - once a career election.

I don’t want anything to do with a plan that stores a benefit with the company instead of my own name. For that type of risk, the expected return should be high. I don’t see an annuity or DB being able to provide anything reasonably close to make the risk worth the promised reward.

Just show us the DC CASH, let us pay the taxes, and invest it how we see fit. No promises to be broken later.

 

Are you saying that pilots are so weak/scared that they'd just go to work sick rather than call in sick? If so, that's pretty sad. If I'm sick, I call in sick, I don't think twice about it. That said, I don't necessarily agree with the sick leave verification, though I don't see it as a huge deal. I can call in sick for nearly two months and not have to verify...not many places out there can do that. My sister is in the business world for fortune 100 company and has to provide a note for anything over 2 days.

 

Then you would not mind if they went back to a targeted DC plan increasing the percentage for older pilots substantially? Solves all the issues you point out.
The other option is to fund a annuity or DB plan for the pilots who will see a below average retirement. It would not impact the younger pilots in any way other than using more negotiating capital to one group.

 

This is the problem. Options will not work. Say for example everyone over 60 chooses the DB vice an increased DC - not enough coin to pay for a DB. Of course a 64 year old will forgo a DC increase or even his total DC for a DB - he is only losing 1 years worth of DC for many years of DB.


The only way to pay for a straight DB/hybrid annuity monster is to secure a long term funding source not a few guys giving up a few years worth of DC.


FWIW I did see one suggested plan on Chit Chat that did have potential - it gave guys an option and would only pay out a nominal amount for 5 years - a bridge to 70 to let guys increase their PGBC and SS payouts by deferring them. Of course this plan was promptly attacked on all sides. The more outspoken older guys thought it was too little - so they will hold out for a more lucrative plan and end up with nothing. The younger guys didn't seem to like it either - although it was voluntary and didn't seem like it would affect them negatively at all.


Bottom line - A plan to rob Peter to pay Paul will probably never pass the Pilot group. And if fairness is the issue how do we compensate the guys already retired? They have no 401K to contribute?


IMHO we are better off with improvements we all benefit from: Retiree medical, HSA being topped off, increased DC etc.



Scoop