i get what you are saying but at the same time a lot of these guys who point out all that they have sacrificed act like none of the rest of us have sacrificed anything.

by used do you mean hired to consult? because we haven't had them sitting at the negotiating table and thats what many are asking for.

I am aware of that Sailing. Many pilots when speaking of professional negotiators, are talking about other than ALPA employees and eliminating the pilot negotiators altogether. (Not me)

That is what I was referencing.

There is no negotiating table in the traditional sense. Negotiations are done via term sheets in a very methodical process. Term sheets are exchanged and costed out by each side and counters made via additional term sheets. Discussions at the table focus mostly on questions that arise about specific items that are not clear to one side or the other from the term sheets.

The flip side is don't release the results and those on the "losing" side will question ALPA's integrity and motives. I think trust among the union membership is more important than tipping our hand in negotiations. People live in their own echo chamber. The pilots who think they want a DB probably think a majority of the pilots agree with them, and the same can also be said for those who do not want a DB. Just release the results and end the debate so we can proceed with a unified goal.

They could probably get away with putting out some broad generalizations about the data but I still wouldn't want them putting out a lot of specific data.

I don't dispute that. The problem I'm concerned with here is that we may be putting a pie in the window for everyone to sniff that ends up being a pie in the sky fantasy if the slice we all get is way smaller then expected. DB plans are very tempting, and top heavy "best year" FAE plans are irresistibly intoxicating narcotics. Which is why they won't be attainable in the real world. Yet if we chase our tails on this we'll end up in a flat spin below the hard deck while management swirl their snifters of Louis XIII in high backed leather chairs chortling at their good fortune from our unforced error as they send themselves mocking "Art of War" memes at our expense.

I think everyone would be in favor of retirement increases and most would be receptive to possibly adding another type of plan option. But the big risk in all this is the potential for division it could quickly escalate to if it gets into the realm of emotion based unsustainable or unattainable economics. If that happens, even if our proposal(s) are in the "zone of reasonableness" [aka reality] we may have already driven wedges of false hope by that point. Then all the company has to do is say "you won't be getting that, but we can maybe entertain a small fraction of that for a huge scope/work rule sale..."

I think what us "young guys" find out on the line or here in the forums is a tit-for-tat type argument. My scenario was worse than yours, no mine was, no mine was, and you have a couple of people fighting like children.

In the regional world, we saw our CEO's making millions of dollars during the worst recession in our Country's history. Meanwhile, they were telling us we had to keep cutting costs to make ourselves more competitive, or else we'd lose our flying. We were nothing more than contractors. Hell, the regional world is still the same today as it was back then. The only difference is they have to pay the pilots because of simple supply/demand. There aren't a lot of young whippersnappers at Riddle/UND/Purdue who want to be pilots, because the idea of making very little money while paying back an asinine amount of student loans is not appealing. Why would it be?

My point with this diatribe is this: pretty much every pilot here at Mother D has made a sacrifice somewhere along the way. Regardless of your sacrifice, whatever cross you choose to bear, I think we could all do better to not belittle each other. Let's come together to get the contract we deserve.

Well said, it hasn't been an easy ride for most and infighting won't help us achieve our goals. Upward we go.

[QUOTE=sailingfun;2666245]Americans plans were reasonably funded and in no danger of termination. Delta’s plan had 5 billion in assets and 1 billion in funds. This was driven by the massive increases in FAE. Prior to 99 most FAE’s were around 180 to 200K. With the huge spike in GS’s and the 01 contract FAE’s soared to 360 to 400k. Add in a crashing market, lump sum payouts from early outs boosted by falling interest rates and a well funded plan dropped to 20%.

American plans in no danger? See:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/b...-airlines.html

As to our plan, it is bit much to blame C2K rates as the primary factor. The early retirements (yes I get the impact of the rates on the associated lump sums) with the market brought it to a crisis. In hind sight, lump sums should have only been available when the plan was high funding rate (would have been easy to do when the lump sum was first negotiated: the 1990 contract).

While we will probably not completely agree on the above, the discussion is an example of the perils in some forms of deferred compensation.

In 2006 I was very unpleasantly surprised when many of the same conversations where occurring: senior pilots wanting their pension protected and junior pilots wanting scope/job protections and the inevitable clash when emotions got charged. When I heard guys arguing I would try to steer the discussion back to “we have to be in this together”.

I voted no on Letter 51 for both the pension and scope. I was in the minority. Today RJ scope is much better and my pension is what it is. I’m not going to ask for a pension restoration that gives my seniority group a disproportionate share of future contractual gains.

However, I will fly as long the government says I can and my health holds. I like the cash, my PBGC benefit goes up every year I delay taking it, and I like the job. But mostly, since my PBGC benefit is what it is, I like the cash.

I am all for any contractual improvements that benefit all seniority groups.