I dont understand why most of this discussion revolves around justifying the necessity of "giving the old guys this windfall"? This "ask" by our union is about improving rhebretirement monies of EVERY demographic on our list. In my mind it's very simple. Older guys need more upfront money, younger guys dont, so they get increased DC money (hopefully the full 25%)
We are a union of 14000+ guys, of all ages, backgrounds and "stories" If you want to improve EVERYONES retirement, you have to have different "silos" of money. And yeah, that was intentional because our Union has previously given different levels of money to the pilot group.

 

Because nowhere in the history of airline collective bargaining have a group of pilots been given an “advance” on benefits because they will not be around during the full duration of the contract to earn them otherwise. Yes there are always different groups of pilots who benefit more from some negotiated benefits, but they actually have to be around to get those benefits. If we up vacation pay then senior guys benefit because they have more weeks. Better reserve rules don’t help people who only bid lines. Commuter parking doesn’t benefit people who live in base. Why don’t we give guys with less than 4 years left a higher pay raise since they won’t be around long enough to benefit from higher pay rates?

You can’t point to when the union gave younger pilots a higher DC than older ones. You still had to be employed to earn that each month, and that was simply dividing a set amount from the company unequally. Basically in order to do that today we’d need to significantly reduce gains in other contract areas to fund this plus up.

 

My 16% DC isn't equal to your 16% DC. When I retire with 5 fewer years at the higher pay you got, do I then ask the younger pilots to give me a plus-up advance for my last contract? Because that ain't happening.

 

I know this makes sense in your mind. I even understand the "logic" supporting it. I just vehemently disagree with the premise, and with the notion that this contract should be handled in a manner to right historic wrongs on the backs of the youngins. 6- figure "up front" money per retiring pilot ain't cheap and it will come out of other gains we all otherwise could have achieved during active employment.

I am glad, however, that you describe it this way since it's clear you understand (and support) the inequity of the arrangement. Near retirees worked during some awful years here. We understand that. Some of us escaped awful years entirely and the rest of us just experienced them elsewhere. But without someone guaranteeing I'll not have any awful years in the decades ahead, I'm not on board with sacrificing QOL or pay "up front" because I'll be repaid down the road. And when my time is up because nature or legislation or policy tells me it's time, I'll walk out the door with whatever I will have amassed by that date.

 

So the 25% DC would only apply to those not getting the MB? It would make sense to do it that way because you need more money upfront.

 

Well apparently the MBCBP and the MB are two totally separate things, so while we only achieved 1% increases each of the last two contracts, somehow we’re supposed to automagically get 9% this time (for the MBCBP), and oh by the way the company is going to just front hundreds of thousands of dollars per pilot for some unknown number of “dead zoners” for the MB. Where the MB money is coming from (since it’s separate from the MBCBP) is a mystery to me...

 

Have you seen our profits? All of it should be ours! We are the only reason the company is making money. Also, I reserve the right to complain when my profit sharing check is inevitably less.

 

That's beyond absurd. I guess we'll see the contract in 2030. One thing I'm glad about... The company isn't poorly run enough to agree to giving away half their profits to a contract that will be amendable 4 years later.

 

That actually really scares me.

 

Who said that? You?