What they "dropped" on a house is not germane to the issue. This is not about are you rich or are you poor. That $600,000 could have been from an inheritance for example. As I understand it, it's about leveling the retirement for all( "all" being an unidentified class)

 

Well it still comes across as extremely disingenuous. If you were hurting so badly and got so screwed, shouldn’t you be investing/saving that money, not bragging about how it was disposable income?

 

The fundamental issue is that many many pilots think that this min balance payment will cost so much that it distorts or reduces gains in other areas of the contract.

Then add to that the vast differences in personal investments, personal success, and personal incomes in the last 15 years.

The MEC and NC don’t have answers on who has suffered and how much because there isn’t one answer. There are 14,500 answers.

 

If we get close to everything we are asking for, I will prolly soften on the min balance. IF it looks like the MB has eaten a significant chunk out of the rest of the contract, then it will be most likely a no.

Why? J just don’t think the MEC has done a very good job of making their case as to who and how much. I look at pilots in my peer group who didn’t get a huge chunk of note and claim and I know where they are sitting. (Well into the 2’s) Based on that, I would like to see more specific examples using hypothetical pilots, to justify this targeting.

They need to convince me with facts and not these generic statements.

 

TSA won't let me have a lighter or oil but I'm in. The reason these questions are being asked is because there is no real information, only hypotheticals. Hypothetically there is value for all and its optional. Hypothetically the soon to retire pilots were harmed to the extent that they are not able to retire with a reasonable lifestyle. Hypothetically this will not be a large part of the PWA cost that affects other areas. If/when we have real information, the decisions can be informed.

Also we have been the chumps duped by the bait and switch before, see TA1. The questions are valid.

 

Maybe he sold his house and is downsizing? Many reasons besides the conclusion you are jumping to.

Denny

 

There was more to the conversation. I would not have mentioned this had it not been particularly galling within the context of the rest of the conversation.

EDIT: I suppose it is possible he was lying and/or exaggerating for some unknown reason, but highly improbable, unless I have suddenly lost all ability to read people.

EDIT EDIT: I'm not trying to convince anyone about anything. I'm just saying it's personal experiences like that (and the polling, and the union's apparently unresearched plan for who needs what and why, and the lack of actual, solid, actionable information) that are what's driving me to be against the MBCBP/MB.

 

Of course it is germane. How people spend their money is entirely up to them, but when someone simultaneously talks about houses, boats, planes, cars, or whatever, and how broke they are, I don't feel compelled to vote for a contract piece that targets one demographic differently than others. The reality of all of this is that we have been responsible for our retirements for a decade and a half. It sucks, but people should have been making financial adjustments to make sure they set themselves up as much as possible. Certainly life gets in the way sometimes, but again, choices like postponing the new car purchase, having a kid to go public school, or buying a smaller house are decisions many of us have made, so it is hard to swallow when some not only want something most won't ever get, but go out of their way to remove certain money stacks from the conversation. I remain skeptical that any of this will matter since I don't see the company agreeing to it, but the union will need to do much better at showing the math both in cost and polling for me to get on board.

 

Perception is reality.

Hard to tell without context, much in the same way as this MB.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

In a few years time, the Contract 2019 attempt to procure Minimum Balances through Section 6 negotiations will be looked upon as a unique negotiating folly. At the present time, most pilots believe it is a throwaway item designed to "tip the cap" to near retirement age pilots who were employed by Delta Air Lines during a decade of financial turmoil. Without question, the generation with the most demonstrated need for Minimum Balances have already retired, and the financial case for Minimum Balances is disintegrating by the day as 65 pilots/month are reaching mandatory retirement and will not be eligible to receive such benefits.

There are a few realities that clearly point to the impending doom of this negotiation item, and the only question at this point is how much damage and delay will this item cost the pilot group at large over the next 2-3 years. Simply put, the quicker we abandon this item, the sooner we will realize a contract for all Delta pilots.

1) Do we have the votes and/or the collective will to stand behind Minimum Balances? The obvious answer is NO. Despite what appears to be a "doubling down" by the MEC and Negotiating Committee on this item, it's uncertain how much of their stance is just negotiating posture/leverage and/or how much they genuinely believe they have the mandate to pursue Minimum Balances.

What do we know about the viability of MB?
-Every month, we lose 65 votes FOR MB(Retirements), and we gain 65 votes AGAINST MB(New Hires).
-MB in its current form would be among the highest price items or THE highest priced item in our current Section 6 negotiations
-Based on pilot group demographics, we can assume that 50% or less of the pilot group is FOR MB
-The company's position will be strongly AGAINST MB and the cost associated with it.

Ask yourself this, which item in SECTION 6 history at ANY airline was ever agreed to, that had less than 50% pilot support and was one of the HIGHEST line item costs to the company.
Answer: NONE

Another question: Is this item likely to gain support or lose support throughout the course of negotiations? AKA, is the will of Delta pilots getting stronger or weaker over time?
Answer: As discussed above, the demographic shift indicates a falling level of support.

2) Minimum Balances are introducing a new concept in Section 6 negotiating. This is the first time in airline history that Section 6 "gains" are attempting to benefit each pilot equally on the ACTUAL DAY of ratification. Every contract to date, has been a forward looking package of graduated benefits which has made NO attempt to factor in a pilots retirement date when calculating overall "gain". This concept proposes to accelerate an individual's benefit so that each pilot receives the same overall calculated numerical benefit on the ACTUAL DATE of contract ratification. This has NEVER been done before in airline history.
If this new concept is approved, it would initiate a new standard requiring the contractual gains of each 3-5 year agreement to be realized by all pilots on the ACTUAL DATE of ratification rather than received throughout the duration of the agreement. This concept would have to be implemented across all benefit groups, including compensation. For example, if a new contract is signed with 4% annual raises over a 5 year period, pilots who reach retirement age 1 year into the agreement would need to receive accelerated pay rate benefits, ie 20% in the first year. Like the concept of Minimum Balances, this would be required for each pilot to benefit equally as a result of contract ratification. The type of stated EQUALITY goal promoted by the current MEC.

Does this pilot group have the desire and the resolve to change the way benefits are distributed for each Section 6 agreement from today on into the future? Are our pilots willing to fight for this over the next few years? Should all new contracts capture and secure the FULL lifelong benefit for each pilot on the DATE OF RATIFICATION vs the historical model of receiving those benefits over time, if eligible, as a result of maintaining employment with Delta Air Lines?

So, putting aside your own personal preferences, what is the most likely course of events in the future were this MEC and Negotiating Committee to hold Minimum Balances as a non-starter?

In my personal 30,000 ft view, I think the most likely outcome initially is an indefinite delay in reaching an agreement. Followed by the continuation of the erosion of trust and unity by the pilot group for this MEC and Negotiating Committee, which began in December 2019 with the unveiling of our opening position with regard to Retirement and Benefits. Ultimately, if Minimum Balances are not publicly abandoned, we will go through a near re-run of post TA1 whereby the MEC Chairman will be replaced by LEC Reps who are scrambling to placate their constituents. Ultimately, their attempt to salvage their positions will fail and new LEC reps will take their place resulting in the replacement of the Negotiation Committee. The only question yet to be answered is, how much will the pursuit of Minimum Balances cost Delta pilots?