Why I would vote no on a contract with a MB
02-03-2020 | 09:54 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 12,363
Likes: 904
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?
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?
And the real disingenuous argument from the union? That the average pay for a guy with 30-35 years seniority is $200,000.
02-03-2020 | 10:13 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 1,418
Likes: 0
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. ........
The only question yet to be answered is, how much will the pursuit of Minimum Balances cost Delta pilots?
The only question yet to be answered is, how much will the pursuit of Minimum Balances cost Delta pilots?
02-03-2020 | 10:31 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,555
Likes: 3
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?
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?
02-03-2020 | 10:59 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,183
Likes: 638
From: ir.delta.com
We will never know, terms sheets are never disclosed. Value as a whole is all ALPA has ever used as a valuation metric. 9% is 9% whether it's a pay rate increase or additional DC. The cost to the company may be slightly less for DC because pay begets DC and DC has some tax incentives for the company, but largely the same.
02-03-2020 | 11:01 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 12,363
Likes: 904
I don't know why people assume the company would ever agree to 9%. What was the increment on the last two contracts? 2-5?
02-03-2020 | 11:59 AM
#27
Trimming my beard
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
From: 7ERB
I'll do some work here
I would like to talk numbers instead of feelings here and Q1 and Q2 are good starts. I've asked for cost data and have gotten none, so I'm not too excited about our prospects of getting them from the union.
However, we should have the data to do the arithmetic on 1 & 2 and I'm willing to do it. I need some help, though. For starters, I don't have pay tables before the current PWA, so if somebody has a source that would get me going.
My goal will be to take those pay tables and build a spreadsheet with various model careers that represent what various people hired at different points, in the two airlines and making different decisions would have seen in pay and retirement benefits.
So I'd need some proposed models that represent boundaries of the possible. Put these together and we can end up with the best and worse cases and we can commence arguing about how many of these and how much impact a given choice should have on their current retirement expectations. For this, I need folks to reply with a model for a career that we should be talking about. For instance:
Pilot A
Born 1957
Hired at DAL 1989
72 FE 1989-1995
NB FO 1995-2005
767-400(Int) FO 2005-2015
NB CA 2015-present
Pilot B
Born 1957
Hired at NWA 2000
DC-9 FO 2000-2001
Furloughed 2001-2007
A320 FO 2007-2013
B717 CA 2013 to present
I made those up from whole cloth; give me realistic models that represent the low and high earners (maybe some in the middle, too) and I'll have the second piece of the inputs.
Lastly, I need a source on the PBGC calculation and the claim or payouts that occurred on or after the bankruptcy. I know there were silos and the calculations are complex; if I have a document or a source I'll give it a go or tell you I've failed.
I want some numbers to examine and I'm willing to work. I'd love some data to work with. Hit me with questions.
However, we should have the data to do the arithmetic on 1 & 2 and I'm willing to do it. I need some help, though. For starters, I don't have pay tables before the current PWA, so if somebody has a source that would get me going.
My goal will be to take those pay tables and build a spreadsheet with various model careers that represent what various people hired at different points, in the two airlines and making different decisions would have seen in pay and retirement benefits.
So I'd need some proposed models that represent boundaries of the possible. Put these together and we can end up with the best and worse cases and we can commence arguing about how many of these and how much impact a given choice should have on their current retirement expectations. For this, I need folks to reply with a model for a career that we should be talking about. For instance:
Pilot A
Born 1957
Hired at DAL 1989
72 FE 1989-1995
NB FO 1995-2005
767-400(Int) FO 2005-2015
NB CA 2015-present
Pilot B
Born 1957
Hired at NWA 2000
DC-9 FO 2000-2001
Furloughed 2001-2007
A320 FO 2007-2013
B717 CA 2013 to present
I made those up from whole cloth; give me realistic models that represent the low and high earners (maybe some in the middle, too) and I'll have the second piece of the inputs.
Lastly, I need a source on the PBGC calculation and the claim or payouts that occurred on or after the bankruptcy. I know there were silos and the calculations are complex; if I have a document or a source I'll give it a go or tell you I've failed.
I want some numbers to examine and I'm willing to work. I'd love some data to work with. Hit me with questions.
02-03-2020 | 12:12 PM
#28
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 833
Likes: 5
From: Captain
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?
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?
02-03-2020 | 12:17 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,183
Likes: 638
From: ir.delta.com
I would like to talk numbers instead of feelings here and Q1 and Q2 are good starts. I've asked for cost data and have gotten none, so I'm not too excited about our prospects of getting them from the union.
However, we should have the data to do the arithmetic on 1 & 2 and I'm willing to do it. I need some help, though. For starters, I don't have pay tables before the current PWA, so if somebody has a source that would get me going.
My goal will be to take those pay tables and build a spreadsheet with various model careers that represent what various people hired at different points, in the two airlines and making different decisions would have seen in pay and retirement benefits.
So I'd need some proposed models that represent boundaries of the possible. Put these together and we can end up with the best and worse cases and we can commence arguing about how many of these and how much impact a given choice should have on their current retirement expectations. For this, I need folks to reply with a model for a career that we should be talking about. For instance:
Pilot A
Born 1957
Hired at DAL 1989
72 FE 1989-1995
NB FO 1995-2005
767-400(Int) FO 2005-2015
NB CA 2015-present
Pilot B
Born 1957
Hired at NWA 2000
DC-9 FO 2000-2001
Furloughed 2001-2007
A320 FO 2007-2013
B717 CA 2013 to present
I made those up from whole cloth; give me realistic models that represent the low and high earners (maybe some in the middle, too) and I'll have the second piece of the inputs.
Lastly, I need a source on the PBGC calculation and the claim or payouts that occurred on or after the bankruptcy. I know there were silos and the calculations are complex; if I have a document or a source I'll give it a go or tell you I've failed.
I want some numbers to examine and I'm willing to work. I'd love some data to work with. Hit me with questions.
However, we should have the data to do the arithmetic on 1 & 2 and I'm willing to do it. I need some help, though. For starters, I don't have pay tables before the current PWA, so if somebody has a source that would get me going.
My goal will be to take those pay tables and build a spreadsheet with various model careers that represent what various people hired at different points, in the two airlines and making different decisions would have seen in pay and retirement benefits.
So I'd need some proposed models that represent boundaries of the possible. Put these together and we can end up with the best and worse cases and we can commence arguing about how many of these and how much impact a given choice should have on their current retirement expectations. For this, I need folks to reply with a model for a career that we should be talking about. For instance:
Pilot A
Born 1957
Hired at DAL 1989
72 FE 1989-1995
NB FO 1995-2005
767-400(Int) FO 2005-2015
NB CA 2015-present
Pilot B
Born 1957
Hired at NWA 2000
DC-9 FO 2000-2001
Furloughed 2001-2007
A320 FO 2007-2013
B717 CA 2013 to present
I made those up from whole cloth; give me realistic models that represent the low and high earners (maybe some in the middle, too) and I'll have the second piece of the inputs.
Lastly, I need a source on the PBGC calculation and the claim or payouts that occurred on or after the bankruptcy. I know there were silos and the calculations are complex; if I have a document or a source I'll give it a go or tell you I've failed.
I want some numbers to examine and I'm willing to work. I'd love some data to work with. Hit me with questions.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
